Attorney Disciplinary Report

2010 State of the Attorney Disciplinary System Report
Honorable Stuart Rabner

Chief Justice Supreme Court of New Jersey
Charles Centinaro
Director Office of Attorney Ethics
OF
THE
CHARLES CENTINARO Director
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

P.O. BOX 963 TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625 Phone: 609-530-4008 Fax: 609-530-5238
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR
June 7, 2011 TO: THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
It is my pleasure and privilege to present, on behalf of the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics, this twenty-seventh issue of the State of the Attorney Disciplinary System Report. In fashioning the current structure of the attorney disciplinary system, the Courts stated mission was to establish the most effective, efficient and responsive system possible. The Office of Attorney Ethics strives each day to achieve those goals. In 2010, the Office continued to make improvements in case processing. The Office averaged an investigative time goal compliance rate of 81%, and as of the end of the year, time goal compliance reached an all-time high of 86%. In addition, the Office continued to decrease the average time in which it investigates cases by more than one week. Time goal compliance at the district ethics committee level was increased to 73%, and the committees also reduced the average age of their pending investigations by close to three weeks. The increase in investigative time goal compliance resulted in a corresponding decrease in the average backlog to 19% for the year. More importantly, the average age of backlogged cases was reduced by almost 1 months. By the end of the year, there were no cases over two years old, and the percentage of cases over one year old was even lower than last years all-time low. Even more impressive results were achieved by the district ethics committees. Their average backlog was reduced by a full three percentage points to 27%, and the average age of their backlogged cases was reduced by more than three weeks. With regard to cases in the hearing stage, the Office reduced the average time from the filing of its complaints until the conclusion of its hearings by 3 months, and the district ethics committees reduced the average time of cases in the hearing stage by close to one month.
The Attorney Fee Arbitration Program, which provides an inexpensive and effective mechanism for resolving fee disagreements, handled a total of 1,689 matters involving close to $12.7 million in legal fees during 2010. The Random Audit Program continues to serve the interests of the Bar and the public by ensuring financial accountability by New Jersey attorneys. During 2010, the Program conducted 412 full field audits and an additional 90 mail audits. As a result of serious financial and recordkeeping violations uncovered by the Program, eight (8) attorneys were disciplined in 2010. These efficiencies have been achieved and sustained during a period of reduced professional and support staffing. More importantly, these efficiencies have been achieved without any sacrifice in the quality and fairness of investigations and prosecutions. As always, the Office of Attorney Ethics is committed to continuing to administer the disciplinary, fee and random audit systems in an effective, fair and efficient manner. Respectfully submitted,
Charles Centinaro, Director Office of Attorney Ethics
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. II. III. Iv. v. vI. THE YEAR IN REvIEW A. B. C. A. B. C. D. A. B. C. D. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. A. B. C. D. E. A. B. Increases in Efficiency OAE Training Conference Discipline Grievances Investigations Complaints Hearings Types of Disciplinary Sanctions Final Discipline Emergent Action Total Discipline Gross and Patterned Neglect Other Money Offenses Knowing Misappropriation Conflict of Interest Criminal Convictions Fraud and Misrepresentation Fees Ineligible Practicing Law Disability-Inactive Status Character Committee / Bar Admissions / Contempt Diversions Reinstatement Proceedings Monitored Attorneys District Ethics Committees Disciplinary Review Board
i
9 9 10 10 11 11 11 13 14 15 15 15 16 17 23 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 25 41 41 41 42 43 43 45 46 47
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AND PROCEDURE
SANCTIONS
GROUNDS FOR FINAL DISCIPLINE
OTHER RELATED ACTIONS
DISCIPLINARY STRUCTURE
vII. vIII. IX.
C. D. E. F. A. B. C. D. E. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. A. B. C. D. E.
Supreme Court of New Jersey New Jersey State Bar Association Financing Attorney Discipline Office of Attorney Ethics History and Purpose Administration Structure Annual Caseload Nature of Cases Purpose Administration Randomness and Selection Standards for Accounting Auditing Procedures Compliance Through Education Disciplinary Actions Attorney Population Admissions Attorney Age Other Admissions Private Practice
48 49 50 50 55 55 55 55 57 58 59 59 60 60 60 61 61 62 63 63 63 64 65 66
ATTORNEY FEE ARBITRATION
RANDOM AUDIT PROGRAM
ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
ii
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Changes In Investigations Lawyer-Grievance Analysis Changes In Complaints Five-Year Sanction Trend Yearly Discipline Report Why Attorneys are Disciplined Disciplinary Summaries Attorney Disciplinary System 2010-11 District Ethics Committee Officers Supreme Court of New Jersey OAE Legal Group OAE Administrative Group OAE Support Group OAE Complex Investigative Group OAE District Group OAE Fee Arbitration Group 2010-11 District Fee Committee Officers Changes in Fee Disputes Random Audit Group 2010 RAP Sanctions Attorneys Admitted Year Admitted Attorney Age Other Admissions Admissions in Other Jurisdictions Private Practices of New Jersey Law Private Firm Structure Private Firm Size Number of Firms New Jersey Bona Fide Private Offices Bona Fide Private Office Locations
iii
DESCRIPTION
PAGE 12 12 13 17 18 23 26 45 46 49 51 52 52 53 53 56 57 58 60 62 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 67 68 69 69
I.
A.
THE YEAR IN REvIEW

INCREASES IN EFFICIENCY To ensure swift justice and efficiency, the Supreme Court has established time goals for the thorough and fair completion of all disciplinary investigations and hearings. R.1:20-8. During 2010, the OAE continued to make significant progress toward improving the efficiency of its operations and those of the District Ethics Committees (Ethics Committees) it oversees. 1. InvESTIgATIOnS a. Improvement in Time goal Compliance Over the last year, the OAE increased compliance with the Supreme Courts time goals for investigating cases from a yearly average of 80% to 81%, and the Ethics Committees increased their average time goal compliance for the year from 70% to 73%. b. Reduction in Age of Investigations Also, during 2010, the OAE decreased the average time in which it investigates its cases by more than one week. By the end of the year, the average age of pending investigations was only 4.3 months, which is lower than at any time in the last decade. The Ethics Committees reduced the average age of their pending investigations by close to three weeks, and the average age of their pending investigations as of the end of the year was 4.6 months, which is also the lowest its been in more than ten years. c. Reduction in Backlog The OAE continued to reduce its backlog in 2010. Specifically, the OAE reduced the average percentage of backlogged investigations it handles by one percentage point. In addition, the OAE reduced the average age of backlogged investigations by 42 days. Moreover, the age of the oldest investigation was reduced by more than four (4) months, and the percentage of investigations over one year old was 7%, which is even lower than last year. Similarly, the Ethics Committees reduced their average backlog percentage by three percentage points, the average age of their backlogged investigations by three (3) weeks, and the age of their oldest investigation by 8.6 months. d. Increase in Dispositions In addition to reducing the percentage and age of cases in backlog, the OAE increased the number of dispositions, from 761 in 2009 to 792 in 2010. The Ethics Committees also increased the number of their dispositions, from 666 in 2009 to 717 in 2010. e. Decrease in Investigations In 2010, slightly fewer new investigations were added to the joint docket of the OAE and Ethics Committees than in 2009. Specifically, 1,431 new investigations were commenced in
Office of Attorney Ethics
2010, as opposed to 1,476 investigations in 2009. Stated differently, new investigations decreased by 3% in 2010. 2. HEARIngS a. Reduction in Age of Hearings In 2010, the average time it took for the OAE to complete hearings on the complaints it filed was reduced by 3.6 months. The Ethics Committees completed their hearings an average of almost one month faster. b. Increase in Complaints These improvements were made despite the fact that the OAE and Ethics Committees were handling more cases in the hearing stage due in part to an increase in the filing of formal complaints (and other charging documents). Two hundred and forty (240) complaints were added in 2010, representing an increase of 3% over the 233 complaints filed in 2009. B. OAE TRAINING CONFERENCE Improving efficiency is a top priority of the Office of Attorney Ethics, but not at the expense of quality and thorough investigations or fair prosecutions and adjudications. To help ensure and improve the quality and effectiveness of attorney regulation, the Office of Attorney Ethics supplemented its regular training of the professionals and volunteers involved in attorney discipline by hosting an all-day training conference. This conference, which was held at The Conference Center at Mercer County Community College on October 28, 2010, represented the first time in the history of the OAE that such a comprehensive training conference was held. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner opened the OAE Training Conference by recognizing the hard work and dedication of the OAE staff and the hundreds of volunteers serving on the many Ethics and Fee Arbitration Committees. He spoke of the importance of attorney regulation and thanked everyone for the service. The Chief Justices remarks were followed by a plenary session and fourteen workshops designed to meet the specific training needs of all those involved in the screening, investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of attorney disciplinary matters. Over 200 attendeeds submitted evaluation forms in which they described the workshops as informative, helpful and wellpresented. C. DISCIPLINE A total of 160 attorneys were sanctioned by the new Jersey Supreme Court in 2010. (See Sanctions at page 15). This amount includes all attorneys on whom final discipline was imposed as well as those against whom emergent action was taken. In 2009, 173 attorneys were sanctioned. Therefore, 7.5% fewer attorneys were disciplined than one year ago.
10
II. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AND PROCEDURE

A. GRIEVANCES The attorney disciplinary process usually begins with the filing of a grievance against an attorney. grievances come from various sources, including clients, other attorneys, judges, and the OAE itself. Upon receipt of a grievance, a determination is made as to whether the facts alleged, if proven, would constitute unethical conduct. If the facts alleged in the grievance would not constitute unethical conduct (for example, where the lawyer did not pay a personal bill), the case will not be docketed. If, on the other hand, a determination is made that the facts alleged in the grievance, if proven, would constitute unethical conduct, and if the grievance is not otherwise properly declined, the grievance is docketed. B. INVESTIGATIONS 1. ClEAR AnD COnvInCIng EvIDEnCE Docketed grievances are assigned for investigation to determine whether unethical conduct may have occurred and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges by clear and convincing evidence. Investigations include communicating with the respondent-attorney, the grievant and any necessary witnesses, as well as securing necessary records and documents. 2. COnFIDEnTIAlITy Pursuant to new Jersey Court Rule 1:20-9(b), all disciplinary investigations are confidential until and unless a formal complaint or other charging document has been filed and served upon the attorney-respondent. Disciplinary officials have a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the system and all non-public documents. R. 1:20-9(i). However, the grievants are free to speak about all aspects of the investigation process. nevertheless, documents gathered during the investigation may not be released publicly by anyone, except as permitted by R.1:20-9(a)(1). Once a formal complaint or other charging document is filed, the case becomes public with minor limitations and subject to protective orders in rare situations. 3. STATEwIDE InvESTIgATIOnS Overall, the disciplinary system entered 2010 with a statewide total of 1,058 investigations carried over from prior years. During the year, 1,431 new investigations were added for a total disposable caseload of 2,489. A total of 1,507 investigations were completed and disposed of, leaving 982 pending investigations at years end. Of that number, 219 were in untriable status, leaving an active pending investigative caseload of 763 matters at the end of 2010. Thus, the OAE cleared its calendar, meaning that the number of dispositions exceeded the number of newly added matters. Certain cases are inactive and are placed in untriable status due to pending criminal, civil or related disciplinary litigation (in this state or another state), illness of a party, witness or counsel, or for other similar reasons where the matter cannot proceed through the hearing process. when the reason for placement in untriable status is resolved, the case is reactivated by the OAE and proceeds in the usual course.
11
During 2010, the number of grievances docketed and assigned for investigation (1,431) decreased by 3% compared to the 1,476 new filings recorded in 2009. However, in comparison to five years ago, the number of grievances docketed in 2010 increased by .14%. (Figure 1). Changes In Investigations
Year Filings Change Overall -3% 2010 1,431 5.9% 2009 1,476 .14% 2008 1,394 -10.2% 8.7% 2007 1,553 --2006 1,429
Figure 1
The number of attorneys against whom grievances are docketed for investigation is generally a small percentage of the total lawyer population. In 2010, only 2.05% of the 69,905 active lawyers as of December 31, 2010 had grievances docketed against them. (Figure 2). This figure has remained relatively stable over the past five years. Lawyer-Grievance Analysis
Year 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Filings 1,431 1,476 1,394 1,553 1,429 Lawyers* 69,905 68,431 67,181 65,134 63,275 Percent 2.05% 2.16% 2.07% 2.38% 2.26%
* Active Lawyers Source: Lawyers Fund for Client Protection
Figure 2
4. TIME gOAlS The Supreme Court has established time frames in which investigations and hearings should be concluded. R. 1:20-8. These time goals call for standard investigations to be completed within six months and complex investigations within nine months from the date a grievance is docketed (until an investigative report is filed and the case is dismissed, diverted or a charging document is filed). Most cases handled by the Ethics Committees are classified as standard while most OAE cases are classified as complex. The actual time involved necessarily depends on a number of factors, including staffing, the cooperation of the grievant, the respondent and any other witnesses, and the complexity of the matter itself. The average investigative time goal compliance rate for OAE cases for 2009 was 80%. The average investigative time goal compliance rate increased to 81% for 2010, and was as high as 86% by the end of the year. The average time goal compliance rate at the Ethics Committee level increased from 70% for 2009 to 73% for 2010.
12
In addition to increasing time goal compliance, the OAE reduced the average time in which it investigates cases from 166 days in 2009 to 158 for 2010, an improvement of more than one week. As of the end of 2010, the average age of OAE investigations was only 128 days. Similarly, the Ethics Committees reduced the average age of their pending investigations by almost three weeks, from 171 days in 2009 to 151 days for 2010. The average age of the Ethics Committees investigations was as low as 140 days by the end of the year. An increase in time goal compliance results in a corresponding decrease in the percentage of investigations in backlog. However, not only was the percentage of OAE cases in backlog reduced by 1%, the average age of backlogged investigations was reduced by 42 days, from 432 days for 2009, to 390 days for 2010. Moreover, the percentage of cases over one year old was reduced from 9% at the end of 2009 to 7% by the end of 2010. The percentage of cases over two years old was reduced to 0% from 2% at the end of 2009. The Ethics Committees were also successful in reducing the average age of their backlogged investigations. The average age of Ethics Committee investigations in backlog was 344 days for 2009, but was reduced to 321 days for 2010, a reduction of 23 days. C. COMPLAINTS At the conclusion of the investigative process, a determination is made as to whether there is adequate proof of unethical conduct. If there is no reasonable prospect of proving unethical conduct to the requisite extent, the matter is dismissed. If, however, there is a reasonable prospect of proving unethical conduct by clear and convincing evidence, and the matter is not diverted (see Other Related Actions at page 41), a formal complaint is filed and served on the respondentattorney, who has 21 days to file an answer. 1. STATEwIDE FORMAl COMPlAInTS The disciplinary system began calendar year 2010 with a total of 220 complaints carried over from prior years. During the year, 240 new complaints were added for a total disposable caseload of 460. A total of 244 complaints were completed and disposed of through the hearing process, leaving 216 pending complaints at years end. Of that number, 22 were in untriable status, leaving an active pending caseload of 194 complaints. As with investigations, the Office of Attorney Ethics achieved calendar clearance. The number of new formal complaints filed in 2010 (240) increased by 3% this year over last year (233). For the most recent five-year period, new formal complaints decreased overall by .4%. (Figure 3). Changes In Complaints
Year Filings Change Overall 240 3.0% 2010 233 23.3% 2009 189 -13.7% -.4% 2008 219 -9.1% 2007 241 --2006
Figure 3
13
D.
HEARINGS 1. HEARIng PAnElS OR SPECIAl ETHICS MASTERS Once an answer is filed, a disciplinary hearing is scheduled and held. In both standard and complex cases, the matter is tried before a hearing panel consisting of three members, composed of two lawyers and one public member. In some complex cases, however, a special ethics master may be appointed by the Supreme Court to hear and decide the matter. 2. PROCEDURE In disciplinary hearings, the procedure followed is similar to that in court trials. A court reporter makes a verbatim record of the entire proceeding. Testimony is taken under oath. Attendance of witnesses and the production of records may be compelled by subpoena. After the conclusion of the hearing, the panel or special ethics master deliberates and prepares a hearing report either dismissing the complaint if it determines that the lawyer has not committed unethical conduct, or finding the lawyer guilty of unethical conduct for which discipline is required. 3. PUBlIC HEARIngS All hearings are open to the public. 4. AgE OF DISPOSED HEARIngS In 2010, the OAE completed its hearings an average 3.6 months faster than in 2009 (559 days for 2009 to 450 days for 2010). The Ethics Committees concluded their hearings almost one month faster than the previous year (316 days in 2009 to 291 days in 2010).
14
III. SANCTIONS
A. TYPES OF DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS There are two types of disciplinary sanctions. The first (and most common) type of disciplinary sanction is final discipline. The second type of disciplinary sanction is imposed as a result of emergent action. B. FINAL DISCIPLINE Final discipline is imposed by or under the auspices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court imposes final discipline after the attorney is first afforded an opportunity for a disciplinary hearing either at the trial level and/or after the Disciplinary Review Board (Review Board) concludes appellate review. The Supreme Court automatically schedules all cases where disbarment is recommended by the Review Board for oral argument before the Supreme Court. Other matters are argued only if the Supreme Court grants a petition for review or on the Supreme Courts own motion. The OAE represents the public interest in all arguments before the Supreme Court. OAE attorneys appeared 34 times for oral argument in discipline cases in 2010. Arguments are televised in real time over the Internet and can be accessed at the Judiciarys website -- www.njcourtsonline. com -- by clicking on the wEBCAST icon. This year the Supreme Court imposed final discipline on 136 new Jersey attorneys, a decrease of 8.1% from 2009 when 148 final sanctions were imposed. Prior years totals were: 167 in 2008; 121 in 2007; and 123 in 2006. Figure 5 at page 18 contains a list of all final and emergent discipline and all reinstated attorneys for 2010. 1. FORMS OF FInAl DISCIPlInE There are six primary forms of final disciplinary sanctions. They are disbarment, license revocation, suspension (for a definite or indefinite term), censure, reprimand, and admonition. a. Disbarment Disbarment is the most severe form of discipline and may be imposed either by the Supreme Court after oral argument or with the respondents consent. Disbarment in new Jersey is, for all practical purposes, permanent, since reinstatement was granted in only three cases over the past two centuries. In re wilson, 81 n.J. 451, 456 n.5 (1979) and Rule 1:20-15A(a)(1). like new Jersey, three other states in the country also impose permanent disbarment in all cases (Indiana, Ohio, and Oregon). Additionally, eight other jurisdictions have recognized the importance of permanent disbarment in some, but not all, cases (Arizona, Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, louisiana, and Mississippi). b. license Revocation A license revocation is an annulment of the right to practice law.
15
c. Suspension The sanction of suspension precludes an attorney from practicing law for the period it is in force. An attorney may not resume practicing at the end of the suspension until the Supreme Court first orders reinstatement. There are two types of suspensions. Term suspensions prevent an attorney from practicing for a specific term between three months to three years. R. 1:2015A(a)(2). Indeterminate suspensions may generally be imposed for a minimum of five years. R. 1:20-15A(a)(3). d. Censure Censure is a condemnation of the attorneys misconduct that is imposed by Order of the Supreme Court. R. 1:20-15A(a)(4). e. Reprimand A reprimand is a rebuke for an attorneys unethical conduct. R. 1:15A(a)(5). f. Admonition Admonition, the least serious sanction, is a written admonishment meted out either by letter of the Review Board or by Order of the Supreme Court. R. 1:20-15A(a)(6). 2. DISCIPlInE IMPOSED By THE SUPREME COURT The 136 final sanctions imposed in 2010 include 15 disbarments by Order of the Supreme Court, 12 disbarments by consent of the respondent, no revocations, 21 term suspensions, no indeterminate suspensions, no suspended suspensions, 22 censures, 32 reprimands, and 34 admonitions. Comparisons of 2010 sanctions with the prior year are as follows: disbarments by Order of the Supreme Court increased by 7.1% (15 vs 14); disbarments by consent fell 20% (12 vs 15); no attorneys licenses were revoked; term suspensions were down by 27.6% (21 vs 29); censures decreased 4.4% (22 vs 23); reprimands increased by 23.1% (32 vs 26); and admonitions decreased by 15% (34 vs 40). C. EMERGENT ACTION whenever the OAE believes a serious violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct has occurred and that an attorney poses a substantial threat of serious harm to an attorney, a client or the public (R. 1:20-11), it may file an application seeking the attorneys immediate temporary suspension from practice, pending ongoing investigation. The Supreme Court may either suspend the attorney temporarily or impose a temporary license restriction, which permits the lawyer to continue to practice, but places conditions on that privilege. Conditions may include oversight by a proctor of the attorney and/or the trust account.
16
For 2010, a total of 24 attorneys were the subject of emergent sanctions (22 temporary suspensions and 2 license restrictions). This represents a decrease of 4% from the total last year, when 25 emergent actions were taken (23 temporary suspensions and 2 license restrictions). Prior years results were: 2008 (20 total 18 temporary and 2 license restrictions); 2007 (34 total 30 temporary suspensions and 4 license restrictions); and 2006 (16 total 16 temporary suspensions and no license restrictions). During that five-year period, an average of 23.8 lawyers was subject to emergent action. The names of attorneys emergently disciplined are listed in Figure 5. leading reasons in 2010 for emergent discipline were: knowing misappropriation of clients trust funds at 25% (6 cases); non-payment of fee arbitration committee awards at 21% (5 cases); an attorneys criminal conviction of a serious crime, as defined in R. 1:20-13 at 17% (4 cases), and non-cooperation with disciplinary authorities at 13% (3 cases). D. TOTAL DISCIPLINE In total, 160 attorneys were sanctioned by the new Jersey Supreme Court in 2010, whereas 173 attorneys were sanctioned in 2009. Therefore, 7.5% fewer attorneys were disciplined than one year ago. Sanction totals for previous years were as follows: 187 in 2008; 155 in 2007; and 139 in 2006. The average number of sanctions over the past five years is 162.6. The number of attorneys sanctioned in 2010 is 2.2% lower than this five-year average. Five-Year Sanction Trend
Figure 4
17
YEARLY DISCIPLINE REPORT AND SUMMARIES OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS

DISBARMENT (15) ATTORNEY Banas, Richard W. Filauro, Robert L. Foushee, Jeffrey A. Gold, Mark E. Jackson, Dawn L. Lavenhar, Jeffrey D. Leone, Phil H. Marrero, Ian Wilfredo Meiterman, Bernard Robinson, Loren K. Shaffer, Hal J. Thompson, Gary R . Toner, Terrance N. Tsai, Stephen Walsh, Henry A. Jr. DISBARMENT BY CONSENT (12) ATTORNEY Avery, Diane S. Fishman, Mitchell E. Hersh, Bruce D. Kirnan, Matthew James Kotsogiannis, Christo P. Levin, Gary Peter Michelson, Jeffrey E. Miele, John A. III Natale, Anthony F. Przygoda, Deirdre A. Weiss, James S. Williams, Avis Cole SUSPENSION TERM (21) ATTORNEY Bartolett, Charles Stephen - 3 Mo. Bender, S. M. - 36 Mo. Block, Michael Lee - 6 Mo. Boyer, David Wayne - 3 Mo. Brekus, Andrew John - 12 Mo. Bronson, Larry - 60 Mo. Davidson, Marvin S. - 6 Mo. Davidson, Marvin S. - 6 Mo. De Clemente, Thomas A. - 3 Mo. Gonzalez, Gabriel F. - 3 Mo. Gross, David R. - 3 Mo. Le Blanc, Wilfrid Jr.- 6 Mo. Mc Donnell, Tyrone M. - 3 Mo. Record, James K. - 36 Mo. Restaino, Emil T. - 6 Mo. Rosanelli, Donald S. - 3 Mo. Sharma, Neal - 6 Mo. Swidler, Arthur E. - 3 Mo. Trustan, Nola - 3 Mo. White Morgen, Karin R. - 36 Mo. Witherspoon, David J. - 12 Mo. (1/1/2010 TO 12/31/2010) ADMITTED 1978 1996 1988 1972 2001 1976 1977 2005 1990 2001 1983 1982 1988 1992 1993 ADMITTED 1981 1977 1981 1986 2003 1999 1975 1989 1989 1990 1992 1987 ADMITTED 1983 1969 1990 1992 1986 1970 1969 1969 1971 1997 1960 1998 1986 1989 1984 1981 1992 1985 1982 1986 1994 LOCATION Morris Atlantic Essex Bergen Georgia Colorado Monmouth Passaic Monmouth Warren Pennsylvania Morris New York Somerset Nebraska LOCATION Bergen Burlington Essex Essex Bergen Atlantic Morris Monmouth Somerset Monmouth Camden Atlantic LOCATION ATLANTIC Florida Camden Mercer Pennsylvania New York Essex Essex Hudson Union Morris New York Bergen Sussex Essex Florida Mercer Mercer Ocean Bergen Essex DECIDED 01/06/2010 04/26/2010 02/22/2010 03/09/2010 02/01/2010 02/23/2010 06/01/2010 10/26/2010 06/01/2010 01/06/2010 05/04/2010 06/15/2010 02/22/2010 10/19/2010 06/15/2010 DECIDED 08/31/2010 03/11/2010 12/10/2010 09/17/2010 05/19/2010 10/12/2010 03/19/2010 10/08/2010 03/16/2010 12/06/2010 04/29/2010 09/23/2010 DECIDED 03/29/2010 03/22/2010 02/09/2010 03/02/2010 07/15/2010 11/16/2010 07/08/2010 11/30/2010 01/19/2010 11/16/2010 05/06/2010 07/08/2010 06/29/2010 09/27/2010 06/01/2010 09/21/2010 10/05/2010 07/15/2010 03/22/2010 06/01/2010 07/29/2010 EFFECTIVE 01/06/2010 04/26/2010 02/22/2010 03/09/2010 02/01/2010 02/23/2010 06/01/2010 10/26/2010 06/01/2010 01/06/2010 05/04/2010 06/15/2010 02/22/2010 10/19/2010 06/15/2010 EFFECTIVE 08/31/2010 03/11/2010 12/10/2010 09/17/2010 05/19/2010 10/12/2010 03/19/2010 10/08/2010 03/16/2010 12/06/2010 04/29/2010 09/23/2010 EFFECTIVE 03/29/2010 03/22/2010 02/09/2010 03/02/2010 07/15/2010 01/23/2008 09/06/2010 03/07/2011 02/18/2010 11/16/2010 06/02/2010 07/08/2010 07/30/2010 09/27/2010 07/01/2010 09/21/2010 10/05/2010 08/13/2010 04/22/2010 07/01/2010 08/24/2010
18
Figure 5
CENSURE (22) ATTORNEY Boyman, Christopher D. Cellino, Peter Roy Corbett, Cassandra A. Diorio, Robert C. Finkelstein, Terry J. Goldsmith, Jeff H. Gonzalez, Arleen Caballero Halbfish, Michael David Hediger, Daniel David Hummel, Christopher Philip Jodha, Gary T. M. Lans, Jared M. Manzi, Nicholas R. Markham, Theresa A. Monahan, Thomas P. Morris, John P. Oliver, William H. Jr. Panitch, Richard S. Sanchez, Rodrigo Saunders, Richard P. Squitieri, Jeffrey P. Walzer, Elwood J. Jr. PUBLIC REPRIMAND (32) ATTORNEY Blunt, John Louis Boyajian, Jack H. Bronson, Larry Burger, Martin Carmen, Joseph A. Clemens, Charles W. Crisonino, Edward Joseph Dias, Maria Marquesa Dochney, Joseph J. Dochney, Joseph J. Feinerman, Jeffrey S. Feldstein, Deborah T. Filauro, Robert L. Fox, James Andrew Furino, Ralph V. Jr. Gellene, Alfred V. Gomez, Andrys Sofia Goodwin, Raymond Harley, Thomas A. Kosberg, Alison Ellen Mac Duffie, Edward A. Jr. Macchiaverna, Louis Misci, John A. Jr. Pellegrino, Michael G. Powell, Wayne Rak, Samuel Rochman, David S. Roselli, Thomas C. Russell, Felicia B. Shapiro, Daniel N. Steiert, Geoffrey L. Tan, Herbert Joni
ADMITTED 1987 2005 1993 1975 1985 1984 1984 1997 1995 1982 1983 1987 1993 1999 1985 1974 1972 1989 2001 1985 1994 1974 ADMITTED 1988 1970 1953 1971 1971 1987 1998 1981 1981 1995 1994 1996 1984 1981 1979 1992 1980 1975 1984 1971 1998 1995 1991 1985 1985 1990 1986 1982 1984 1980 1998
LOCATION Union Union Union Union Middlesex Bergen Atlantic Middlesex Bergen Bergen Mercer Bergen Passaic Sussex Bergen Cumberland Monmouth Middlesex Essex Morris New York Mercer LOCATION Bergen Essex New York Bergen Burlington Somerset Camden Union Ocean Ocean Essex Morris Atlantic Essex Middlesex Morris Hudson Somerset Essex Middlesex Ocean Ocean Gloucester Morris Camden Bergen Camden Middlesex Ocean Bergen Voorhees Essex
DECIDED 03/02/2010 09/14/2010 07/30/2010 02/09/2010 03/02/2010 02/09/2010 06/01/2010 04/20/2010 07/15/2010 11/01/2010 11/29/2010 03/22/2010 07/15/2010 07/14/2010 01/19/2010 05/17/2010 09/08/2010 02/09/2010 11/16/2010 04/30/2010 11/16/2010 10/19/2010 DECIDED 02/09/2010 07/15/2010 11/16/2010 02/09/2010 01/26/2010 06/29/2010 03/22/2010 01/26/2010 01/19/2010 01/19/2010 05/17/2010 10/26/2010 04/26/2010 06/22/2010 09/21/2010 09/08/2010 02/09/2010 10/19/2010 02/09/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 10/19/2010 10/05/2010 10/26/2010 09/08/2010 09/08/2010 06/15/2010 11/15/2010 03/17/2010 02/25/2010 02/09/2010 03/22/2010
EFFECTIVE 03/02/2010 09/14/2010 07/30/2010 02/09/2010 03/02/2010 02/09/2010 06/01/2010 04/20/2010 07/15/2010 11/01/2010 11/29/2010 03/22/2010 07/15/2010 07/14/2010 01/19/2010 05/17/2010 09/08/2010 02/09/2010 11/16/2010 04/30/2010 11/16/2010 10/19/2010 EFFECTIVE 02/09/2010 07/15/2010 11/16/2010 02/09/2010 01/26/2010 06/29/2010 03/22/2010 01/26/2010 01/19/2010 01/19/2010 05/17/2010 10/26/2010 04/26/2010 06/22/2010 09/21/2010 09/08/2010 02/09/2010 10/19/2010 02/09/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 10/19/2010 10/05/2010 10/26/2010 09/08/2010 09/08/2010 06/15/2010 11/15/2010 03/17/2010 02/25/2010 02/09/2010 03/22/2010
19
ADMONITION (34) ATTORNEY Abramo, Paul L. Barisonek, Lawrence J. Bhalla, Ravinder Singh Blackman, Robert B. Bozanian, Elton John Burden, James Edward Cerza, John Edward Del Tufo, Gerard Lincoln Duffy, Neil George III Giannetta, Pasquale F. Hand, Stephanie A. Hanna, Douglas B. Healy, Jerramiah T. Iamurri, Fernando Kimm, Michael S. Landis, Michael D. Lesnevich, Walter A. Lewis, Gary S. Main, Kevin H. Minsley, Morton S. Neff, H. A. Nihamin, Felix Oliver, Raymond A. Pareti, Harold J. Pennington, Eric S. Phillips, Duane T. Schwartz, Rhondi L. Smith, Dan S. Spadea, Gregory Taylor, Robert Terrell, A. D. Thompson, Ronald M. Ungvary, Robert A. Weichsel, John L.
ADMITTED 1969 1966 1999 1971 1996 1991 1996 1989 1983 1987 2000 1973 1978 1987 1991 1977 1972 1970 1988 1994 1967 1995 1979 1992 1993 1987 1987 1999 1965 1967 1980 1984 1972
LOCATION Sussex Union Hudson Middlesex Bergen Essex Essex Monmouth Union Passaic Essex Monmouth Hudson Bergen Bergen Monmouth Bergen Essex Mercer New York Ocean New York Warren Florida Essex Atlantic Burlington Essex Camden Hudson Morris Essex Union Bergen
DECIDED 12/14/2010 05/05/2010 12/06/2010 06/18/2010 03/10/2010 07/28/2010 07/15/2010 06/25/2010 03/10/2010 06/25/2010 09/29/2010 09/28/2010 06/15/2010 02/04/2010 01/28/2010 03/19/2010 07/28/2010 02/01/2010 04/30/2010 02/25/2010 06/01/2010 06/14/2010 05/24/2010 02/04/2010 08/03/2010 02/26/2010 06/16/2010 03/31/2010 06/30/2010 02/04/2010 10/05/2010 06/23/2010 03/31/2010 04/23/2010
EFFECTIVE 12/14/2010 05/05/2010 12/06/2010 06/18/2010 03/10/2010 07/28/2010 07/15/2010 06/25/2010 03/10/2010 06/25/2010 09/29/2010 09/28/2010 06/15/2010 02/04/2010 01/28/2010 03/19/2010 07/28/2010 02/01/2010 04/30/2010 02/25/2010 06/01/2010 06/14/2010 05/24/2010 02/04/2010 08/03/2010 02/26/2010 06/16/2010 03/31/2010 06/30/2010 02/04/2010 10/05/2010 06/23/2010 03/31/2010 04/23/2010
TOTAL FINAL DISCIPLINE ....................................................................................................................... 136 TEMPORARY SUSPENSION (22) ATTORNEY Brookman, Kenneth H. Bultmeyer, Paul G. Cammarano, Peter James III Fox, Daniel James Gaglioti, Amedeo Anthony Haggerty, Thomas Joseph Hyde, Christopher West La Vergne, Eugene M. Lentz, Eric S. Levin, Gary Peter Manzi, Nicholas R. Misci, John A. Jr. Molamusa, Kashif Przygoda, Deirdre A. Ruchalski, Karen E.
ADMITTED 1956 1972 2002 1986 1982 1987 1987 1990 1976 1999 1993 1995 1984 1990 2001
LOCATION Passaic Bergenr Essex Essex Morris Essex Morris Monmouth Essex Atlantic Passaic Gloucester Passaic Monmouth Passaic
DECIDED 07/08/2010 05/27/2010 04/26/2010 02/01/2010 11/16/2010 11/08/2010 06/28/2010 10/27/2010 12/31/2010 08/03/2010 02/09/2010 10/27/2010 06/29/2010 10/12/2010 11/08/2010
EFFECTIVE 07/08/2010 05/27/2010 04/26/2010 02/01/2010 11/16/2010 11/08/2010 07/29/2010 10/27/2010 12/31/2010 09/03/2010 02/09/2010 10/27/2010 06/29/2010 10/12/2010 11/08/2010
20
Saint-Cyr, Elaine T. Santarlas, Brien P. Simmsparris, Michele M. Terrell, Sharon S. Turlik, Matthew M. Washington, Gordon A. Williams, W. Ray
1993 2003 2000 1986 1991 1985 1989
Morris Hudson Bergen Camden Union Bergen Essex LOCATION Middlesex Hudson
04/29/2010 02/08/2010 05/04/2010 10/27/2010 09/21/2010 05/26/2010 06/28/2010 DECIDED 01/14/2010 04/20/2010
04/29/2010 02/08/2010 05/04/2010 10/27/2010 09/21/2010 05/26/2010 07/29/2010 EFFECTIVE 01/14/2010 04/20/2010
TEMPORARY LICENSE RESTRICTION (2) ADMITTED ATTORNEY Malvone, Neil A. 1993 In Re ___________________ 1989
TOTAL TEMPORARY DISCIPLINE ........................................................................................................ 24 REINSTATEMENTS (12) ATTORNEY Bailey, Mark Anthony Besden, Laurie Jill De Clemente, Thomas A. Ejiogu, Nedum C. Geary, Patrick Wager Gross, David R. Hyde, Christopher West Krain, Jeffery L. La Vergne, Eugene M. Mc Loughlin, John J. Jr. Miskowski, James W. Trustan, Nola
SUSPENDED 11/06/2009 12/01/2005 02/18/2010 07/20/2000 02/07/2007 06/02/2010 06/28/2010 11/18/2008 10/27/2010 04/26/2004 12/21/2008 04/22/2010
LOCATION Essex Pennsylvania Hudson Essex Camden Morris Morris Atlantic Monmouth Ocean Bergen Ocean
DECIDED 05/26/2010 06/18/2010 04/26/2010 10/26/2010 10/26/2010 09/07/2010 08/09/2010 01/26/2010 11/04/2010 11/22/2010 12/20/2010 07/27/2010
EFFECTIVE 05/26/2010 06/18/2010 04/26/2010 10/26/2010 10/26/2010 09/07/2010 08/09/2010 01/26/2010 11/04/2010 11/22/2010 12/20/2010 07/27/2010
TOTAL REINSTATEMENTS ........................................................................................................ ..12
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINE IMPOSED

ALL FINAL DISCIPLINE ........................................................................................... 136 ALL TEMPORARY DISCIPLINE ............................................................................... 24 ALL REINSTATEMENTS............................................................................................. 12
21
Iv. GROUNDS FOR FINAL DISCIPLINE

The type of misconduct committed in final discipline cases is shown in Figure 6. A. GROSS AND PATTERNED NEGLECT gross and patterned neglect, at 29.4% (40 of 136 cases), was the most common offense for which attorneys were disciplined in 2010. Attorneys who engage in grossly negligent conduct are a danger to the public. while new Jersey does not discipline single instances of simple neglect, multiple instances of simple neglect may form a pattern of neglect that does constitute unethical conduct. This category was also in first place last year, accounting for 18.2% of all sanctions. B. OTHER MONEY OFFENSES In second place this year was the category of Other Money Offenses at 19.1% (26 of 136 cases). These cases include negligent or reckless misappropriation, serious trust account recordkeeping deficiencies, failure to safeguard funds and escrow violations. last year, this category was also the second most frequent reason for discipline at 16.2%. C. KNOWING MISAPPROPRIATION Knowing misappropriation of trust funds at 13.2% (18 of 136 cases) was ranked the third most common cause for discipline this year. In 2009, this category was also the third most common reason for lawyer sanctions at 14.2%. Why Attorneys are Disciplined
Gross/Patterned Neglect Other Money Offenses Knowing Misappropriation Conflict of Interest Criminal Offenses Fraud / Misrepresentation Improper/Excessive Fees Ineligible Practice of Law Other Offenses
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Figure 6
23
Knowing misappropriation cases are of special importance in this state. new Jersey maintains a uniform and unchanging definition of this offense as set forth in the landmark decision of In re wilson, 81 n.J. 451 (1979). It is simply taking and using a clients money knowing that it is the clients funds and that the client has not authorized their use. Knowing misappropriation cases, involving either client trust/escrow funds or law firm funds, mandate disbarment. 1. TRUST OvERDRAFT nOTIFICATIOn new Jersey has the most pro-active financial programs of any state in the country, including Trust Overdraft notification (Overdraft Program) and Random Audits (RAP). The Overdraft Program requires that all financial institutions report to the OAE whenever an attorney trust account check is presented against insufficient funds. During the 25 years of its existence, the Overdraft Program has been the sole reason for the discipline of 144 new Jersey lawyers. Over half of the attorneys (53%) so disciplined were disbarred. In 2010, thirteen (13) attorneys were detected and disciplined through this program: Mark E. gold from Bergen County was disbarred; Hal J. Shaffer from Pennsylvania was disbarred; Stephen Tsai from Somerset County was disbarred; James S. weiss from Camden County was disbarred by consent; Bruce D. Hersh from Essex County was disbarred by consent; Tyrone M. McDonnell from Bergen County was suspended; Cassandra A. Corbett from Union County was censured; Michael David Halbfish from Middlesex County was censured; louis Macchiaverna from Ocean County was reprimanded; Ravinder Singh Bhalla from Hudson County was admonished; Robert B. Blackman from Middlesex County was admonished; Pasquale F. giannetta from Passaic County was admonished; Felix nihamin from new york was admonished. 2. RAnDOM AUDIT PROgRAM The Random Audit Program began conducting audits in 1981. while not designed primarily to detect misappropriation, audits have resulted in the detection of some serious financial violations. Over the 29 years of its operation, a total of 152 attorneys, detected solely by this program, have been disciplined for serious ethical violations. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of those attorneys were disbarred or suspended. This year, eight (8) attorneys were disciplined for committing serious financial violations: Robert l. Filauro from Atlantic County was disbarred; John A. Miele, III from Monmouth County was disbarred by consent; Arthur E. Swidler from Mercer County was suspended; Richard P. Saunders from Morris County was censured; Charles w. Clemens from Somerset County was reprimanded; James Andrew Fox from Essex County was reprimanded; Alison Ellen Kosberg from Middlesex County was reprimanded; Edward A. Mac Duffie, Jr. from Ocean County was reprimanded. D. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Conflict of Interest came in fourth place, accounting for 8.1% (11 of 136 cases) of all discipline cases. This group was tied for eighth place with Communication lacking in 2009. E. CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS In 2010, the category of Criminal Convictions (excluding misappropriation, fraud and drug convictions) ranked fifth at 7.4% (10 of 136 cases). last year, this category was in fifth place at 6.8%. Criminal offenses run the gamut from arson to the unauthorized practice of law.
24
F.
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION In sixth position this year was the grouping of fraud and misrepresentations (whether resulting from criminal or disciplinary findings), which accounted for 4.4% (6 of 136 cases). In 2009, this group was ranked sixth at 6.1%.
G.
FEES Coming in seventh place at 2.9% (4 of 136 cases) was the category of Fees. This grouping includes failure to have a written fee agreement, fee overreaching, improper fee sharing, and impermissible non-refundable retainer agreements.
H.
INELIGIBLE PRACTICING LAW The grouping Ineligible Practicing law was in eighth place this year at 2.2% (3 of 136 cases). This violation arises when lawyers continue to engage in the practice of law after they are ordered by the Supreme Court to cease practicing because they have failed to make payment of the mandatory annual attorney registration licensing fee. This grouping has been in the top ten grounds for discipline in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009. Summaries of each of the 136 final discipline cases can be found in Figure 7.
25
DISCIPLINARY SUMMERIES (1/1/2010 TO 12/31/2010)

Paul L. Abramo Admonished on December 14, 2010 (Unreported) for terminating his representation of a client without taking the appropriate steps to protect his clients interests and for holding his clients file hostage pending receipt of his fee. Leslie Ann Lajewski represented District X and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 2008. Diane S. Avery Disbarred by consent on August 31, 2010 (203 N.J. 373) as a result of respondents criminal conviction in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, of theft by failure to make required disposition, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-9. Nitza I. Blasini represented the OAE and Kurt M. Resch represented the respondent. Richard W. Banas Disbarred on a certified record on January 6, 2010 (200 N.J. 578) for misconduct in two client matters, including gross neglect, pattern of neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, misrepresentation, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Melissa A. Czartoryski appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent has a serious disciplinary history: Reprimanded in 1996; suspended in 1999; censured in 2008; and suspended again in 2008. Lawrence Barisonek Admonished on May 5, 2010 (Unreported) for negligently misappropriating client trust funds as a result of mistakenly crediting $66,000 to a client estate, thereby overstating the funds available for disbursement by that amount, which he disbursed to the beneficiaries of the estate. The negligent misappropriation went undetected for five years due to the respondents failure to prepare the three-way reconciliations required by R. 1:21-6. Walton W. Kingsbery, III appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. Charles Stephen Bartolett Suspended for three months effective March 29, 2010 (202 N.J. 7) for depositing a settlement check issued to a personal injury client who was receiving welfare into the respondents business account without obtaining the endorsement of all the payees, misrepresenting to the Board of Social Services that he had escrowed a portion of the money for the purpose of satisfying its lien against the settlement proceeds, and then negligently misappropriating the funds. Nitza I. Blasini appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Suspended twice in 2003. S. Michael Bender Suspended for three years effective March 22, 2010 (201 N.J. 416) as a result of respondents exclusion from practice by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which is the equivalent to disbarment. The respondent was excluded for neglecting numerous clients by continuing to prosecute their patent applications, which had been filed by a previous attorney, without determining whether the design patent applications were the correct course of action for the clients and by not advising some clients of the final rejections of their applications until the period for responding to the rejections had passed, thereby denying the clients additional time in which to determine how to proceed in their cases and potentially causing them late filing charges. In addition, respondent accepted compensation from someone other than the clients, without full disclosure to the client, which affected his judgment on behalf of his clients. Finally, respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by providing evasive replies to requests for information made by the PTO. Walton W. Kingsbery, III appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. Ravinder Singh Bhalla Admonished on December 6, 2010 (Unreported) for disbursing uncollected funds and for recordkeeping violations. Lee A. Gronikowski appeared before the DRB for the OAE and the respondent appeared pro se. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Robert B. Blackman Admonished on June 18, 2010 (Unreported) for practicing law while ineligible to do so for failure to file the annual IOLTA registration statement for three years. HoeChin Kim appeared before the DRB for the OAE and the respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 1991. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Michael L. Block Suspended for six months effective February 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 159) for misconduct in three client matters including failure to set forth in writing the basis or rate of his fee, failure to comply with a Supreme Court order requiring him to file an affidavit in compliance with R. 1:20-20 following his one-year suspension from the practice of law, failure to turn over a clients file for one year following the termination of his representation, and engaging in lack of diligence, gross neglect, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to comply with a court directive to the detriment of his client. Melissa A. Czartoryski
Figure 7
26
appeared before the DRB for the OAE and the respondent waived appearance. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 2004 and suspended in 2007. John Louis Blunt Reprimanded on February 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 117) for misconduct in two client matters, including gross neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate with client, failure to withdraw from representation due to material impairment, and failure to set forth in writing the rate or basis of his legal fee. Ari N. Weisbrot appeared before the DRB for District IIB and Robert E. Rochford appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 2002 and 2006. Jack H. Boyajian Reprimanded on July 15, 2010 (202 N.J. 333). Respondent, as a principal and nonattorney administrator of a law firm engaged in the business of collecting debts, was disciplined for failing to properly supervise the law firms attorneys and employees and permitting the law firm to operate in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Respondent, a California attorney not admitted to practice law in the State of New Jersey, was disciplined pursuant to RPC 8.5(a), which provides that a lawyer not admitted to practice in this State is nevertheless subject to its disciplinary authority if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this State. Christina Blunda Kennedy appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Robert E. Margulies appeared for the respondent. David W. Boyer Suspended for three months effective March 2, 2010 (Unreported) for engaging in a conflict of interest by renting real estate belonging to an estate he was representing to former clients in a bankruptcy matter without disclosing to either client the nature of the dual representation and without seeking the clients waiver of the conflict. Additionally, respondent engaged in a business transaction with a client without fully explaining the terms of the transaction to the client, without advising the client that he had acquired a pecuniary interest in the transaction, without advising the client about the propriety of seeking independent counsel, and without obtaining clients consent to waive the conflict. Respondent also misrepresented in the RESPA statement for the sale of the real estate the nature and extent of work performed by a contractor on the property, lied to ethics investigators that he had not received funds exceeding the initial loan to the purchaser of the real estate, when he had received interest on the loan, and failed to reveal to the Office of Attorney Ethics his pecuniary interest in the
transaction. Janice L. Richter appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and Robert Ramsey represented the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 2007 and suspended in 2008. Christopher D. Boyman Censured on a certified record on March 2, 2010 (201 N.J. 203) for misconduct in two client matters. In one matter, respondent grossly neglected a clients trademark case and failed to act diligently by not following through on the trademark application. During the pendency of the application, respondent rarely communicated with his client. In the other client matter, respondent grossly neglected and failed to act diligently in connection with two collection cases he was handling. Respondent filed a complaint in one of the matters, but failed to take steps necessary to obtain a default judgment, after defendant failed to file an answer, which then resulted in a dismissal of the complaint. In the second collection case, respondent failed to take any steps to pursue the matter. Respondent also borrowed $15,000 from this second client without providing the client with a writing memorializing the transaction or advising his client to seek the advice of another attorney, and without obtaining clients consent to the transaction in writing. Respondent also failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of these matters. James J. Byrnes appeared before the DRB for District XII and respondent failed to appear. Elton John Bozanian Admonished on March 10, 2010 (Unreported) for misconduct in two client matters. In one matter, respondent lacked diligence by failing to file virtually completed pleadings given to him by prior counsel. Respondent also ignored sixteen telephone calls from client requesting information about the cases. In the second matter, respondent failed to keep his client informed about important aspects of the case and to send the client two court orders dismissing the complaint. Michael I. Lubin appeared before the DRB for District IIB and Norman S. Karpf appeared for the respondent. Andrew J. Brekus Suspended for one year on a certified record on July 15, 2010 (199 N.J. 511) for grossly neglecting a clients workers compensation and personal injury claims, engaging in a pattern of neglect, failing to act diligently, failing to communicate with the client, failing to turn over the clients file, making misrepresentations to client, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Ann Madden Tufano appeared before the DRB for
27
District IV and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 2000; reprimanded in 2006; suspended for one year in 2009 and censured in 2009. Larry A. Bronson Suspended for five years effective January 23, 2008 (204 N.J. 173) as a result of respondents guilty plea to illegally structuring monetary transactions to avoid reporting requirements while knowing that, at the time of the transactions, the funds were the product of unlawful activity. Nitza I. Blasini appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Lawrence Lustberg appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Temporarily suspended in 2008; reprimanded in 2008; and reprimanded again in 2009. Larry Bronson Reprimanded on November 16, 2010 (204 N.J. 76) for failing to safeguard funds by maintaining a New York trust account, when he is licensed only to practice law in New Jersey, and by depositing non-client funds in that trust account. Respondent also failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities by delaying his response to the OAEs request for information and by repeatedly adjourning a demand audit. Christina Blunda Kennedy appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent waived appearance. James Edward Burden Admonished on July 28, 2010 (Unreported) for grossly neglecting a personal injury matter and failing to act diligently by failing to record a judgment he had obtained against the defendant who subsequently filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. Also, respondent did not inform the clients that the judgment had not been recorded and that no proof of claim had been filed on the clients behalf. Ernest Louis Alvino, Jr. appeared before the DRB for District IV and respondent appeared pro se. Martin Burger Reprimanded on February 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 119) for paying a paralegal employee fifty percent of the legal fees generated by immigration cases the paralegal referred to the respondent. Michael J. Sweeney appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Aaron E. Albert appeared for the respondent. Joseph A. Carmen Reprimanded on January 26, 2010 (201 N.J. 141) for failing to act diligently in representing clients in a civil matter by never filing a lawsuit on clients behalf and failing to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of the matter. John A. Zohlman, III appeared before the DRB for District IIIB and respondent appeared pro
se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Privately reprimanded in 1985. Thomas Anthony Cattani Was found guilty of engaging in a conflict of interest (Unreported) by borrowing money from a client without advising the client to seek the advice of independent counsel and without obtaining clients written consent to the transaction. However, inasmuch as this conduct occurred during the same time frame as other unethical for which the respondent was suspended, no additional discipline was imposed. Susan A. Semler appeared before the DRB for District IIA and respondent appeared pro se. As mentioned previously, respondent was previously disciplined: Suspended in 2006. Peter R. Cellino Censured on a certified record on September 14, 2010 (203 N.J. 375) for grossly neglecting a matter, failing to communicate with the client, misrepresenting the status of the case to the client, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Nitza I. Blasini appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. John E. Cerza Admonished on July 15, 2010 (Unreported) for failing to act diligently in two real estate matters by delaying the satisfaction of tax liens, even though he had escrowed funds for that purpose. Respondent also ignored almost all of one clients attempts to communicate with him about the unpaid liens and engaged in recordkeeping violations. Melissa A. Czartoryski appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Salvatore T. Alfano represented the respondent. Charles W. Clemens Reprimanded on June 29, 2010 (202 N.J. 139) for negligently misappropriating client funds and engaging in numerous recordkeeping violations. HoeChin Kim appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent waived appearance. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Random Audit Compliance Program. Cassandra A. Corbett Censured on July 30, 2010 (202 N.J. 463) for negligently misappropriating client funds, transferring funds from the business account into a trust account and then issuing checks from that trust account to pay business expenses, and misrepresenting to the OAE that she had repaid the entire amount negligently misappropriated when, in fact, replenishment was not completed until two months later. Christina Blunda Kennedy appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent
28
appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 2001; reprimanded in 2007. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Edward J. Crisonino Reprimanded on March 22, 2010 (201 N.J. 415) for allowing the appeal of his clients criminal conviction to be dismissed due to his failure to timely file an appellate brief, failing to take corrective measures to reinstate the appeal, failing to keep his client informed about the status of the case, and leading his client to believe, for two years, that the appeal was progressing normally, although it had been dismissed two years earlier. John S. Eory appeared before the DRB for District VII and Justin T. Loughry appeared for the respondent. Marvin S. Davidson Suspended for six months, effective September 6, 2010 (202 N.J. 530) for misconduct in two real estate matters, a personal injury case, and a collection matter. In one real estate matter, respondent failed to satisfy two tax liens after the closing. Instead, respondent released the escrow funds reserved to pay the liens to his client. In the second real estate matter, respondent refused to release deposit funds to the buyer after the cancellation of the real estate contract, thereby causing a default judgment and wage execution to be entered against his client. In the personal injury matter, respondent failed to honor a chiropractors lien, failed to notify the chiropractor of his receipt of the clients settlement funds, misrepresented to the chiropractor that he had not yet received the settlement funds, and failed to turn over documents requested by the DEC investigator. Also, respondent grossly neglected a collection matter and failed to act diligently by allowing the complaint to be dismissed, failing to have the complaint reinstated, and failing to communicate with the client. Finally, respondent failed to correct recordkeeping improprieties. Christina Blunda-Kennedy appeared before the DRB for the OAE, Nicholas S. Brindisi appeared before the DRB for District VB, and Ronald M. Gutwirth appeared on behalf of the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Suspended in 1995, reprimanded in 2005, and temporarily suspended in 2009. Marvin S. Davidson Suspended for six months on a certified record effective March 7, 2011 (204 N.J. 175) for grossly neglecting a personal injury matter and failing to act diligently by permitting the complaint to be dismissed twice for failure to provide answers to interrogatories and failure to provide discovery and for not seeking to have the case reinstated in a timely manner. Respondent also failed
to keep his client informed about the status of the case, and failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Nicholas S. Brindisi appeared before the DRB for District VB and respondent failed to appear. The respondent has an extensive disciplinary history: Suspended in 1995; reprimanded in 2005; temporarily suspended in 2009; and suspended in 2009. Thomas A. Declemente Suspended for three months effective February 18, 2010 (201 N.J. 4) for misconduct in two client matters, including engaging in a conflict of interest, engaging in a prohibited business transaction with clients, making multiple misrepresentations to clients, and failing to disclose to opposing counsel his financial relationship with a judge, thereby engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Walton W. Kingsbery, III appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Michael Perle appeared on behalf of respondent. Gerard L. Del Tufo Admonished on June 25, 2010 (Unreported) for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and intended to disrupt a tribunal by accusing a municipal court judge of being in collusion and in bed with the prosecutor after the judge granted the prosecutor an adjournment but denied the respondents similar adjournment request. Frederick R. Wiedeke appeared before the DRB for District IIIA and respondent appeared pro se. Maria M. Dias Reprimanded on January 26, 2010 (201 N.J. 8) for negligently misappropriating client funds, engaging in numerous recordkeeping violations, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Christina Blunda Kennedy appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously admonished in 2008. Robert C. Diorio Censured on February 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 121) for improperly depositing personal injury protection checks made payable to third party medical providers into his attorney trust account and failing to promptly deliver those funds to the medical providers in nineteen personal injury matters. Lee A. Gronikowski appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Gregory J. Lawrence appeared for the respondent. Joseph J. Dochney Reprimanded on 2010 (201 N.J. 1) for failing to file termination lawsuit on his clients misrepresenting to the client that the January 19, a wrongful behalf and matter was
29
proceeding properly, even though he had not conducted an investigation in the matter and permitted the statute of limitations on clients claim to run. Respondent also failed to provide client with any type of writing setting forth the basis or rate of his fee. Christine Lim Matus appeared before the DRB for District IIIA and respondent failed to appear. The matter proceeded by way of default. Joseph J. Dochney Reprimanded on January 19, 2010 (201 N.J. 3) for using information relating to his firms prior representation of a client in a municipal court matter to the clients disadvantage and detriment in an unrelated custody matter, thereby preventing the former client from having unfettered contact with her nephew, who was also the client of respondents stepson. Scott W. Kenneally appeared before the DRB for District IIIA and respondent appeared pro se. Neil George Duffy, III Admonished on March 10, 2010 (Unreported) for orally advising his client that he would no longer represent client, but not taking sufficient steps, such as a written letter, to dispel clients misunderstanding that he was still representing the client. Louis H. Miron appeared before the DRB for District XII and respondent appeared pro se. Jeffrey S. Feinerman Reprimanded on May 17, 2010 (202 N.J. 48) for negligently misappropriating client funds and committing recordkeeping violations, making misrepresentations on real estate closing documents, and practicing law while ineligible. Melissa Czartoryski appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Elliott Abrutyn appeared for the respondent. Deborah T. Feldstein Reprimanded on October 26, 2010 (Unreported) for engaging in a conflict of interest by representing a client in the purchase of tax lien certificates from other individuals and entities from whom respondent and her law firm prosecuted tax lien foreclosures. Respondent also failed to set forth the rate or basis of her legal fee. Bruce Ackerman represented the District XB Ethics Committee and Gerard E. Hanlon represented the respondent on a motion for discipline by consent granted by the DRB. Robert L. Filauro Reprimanded on a certified record on April 26, 2010 (202 N.J. 9) for failing to reply to two grievances filed by his clients with disciplinary authorities. Michele C. Verno appeared before the DRB for District I and respondent failed to appear.
Robert L. Filauro Disbarred on a certified record on April 26, 2010 (202 N.J. 9) for knowingly misappropriating $25,000 in escrow funds by depositing the money into a personal savings account and then periodically transferring the money to his business account and spending it. John McGill, III appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Random Audit Program. Terry J. Finkelstein Censured on March 2, 2010 (Unreported) for grossly neglecting an estate matter and failing to act diligently by not timely filing the required New Jersey inheritance tax return, not obtaining the necessary tax waiver, permitting a certificate of debt to be filed against the estate and its beneficiaries, not determining the proper beneficiaries for certain bequests, and not distributing certain bequests. Respondent also failed to communicate with his client, failed to safeguard funds by not posting a trust account check on the estates ledger card, thereby causing a negligent misappropriation of estates funds, and failed to maintain proper records. Lee A. Gronikowski appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished and reprimanded in 2004. Mitchell E. Fishman Disbarred by consent on March 11, 2010 (201 N.J. 203) as a result of respondents criminal conviction in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371. Specifically, respondent conspired with others to fraudulently obtain money and property from lenders and others by making materially false and misleading representations and omissions in loan documents and other supporting information. Nitza I. Blasini represented the OAE and Gregory Lawrence represented the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Privately reprimanded in 1990. Jeffrey A. Foushee Disbarred on a certified record on February 22, 2010 (201 N.J. 149) for failing to file a timely appeal of the New Jersey Merit System Boards determination regarding his client, taking no steps to cure his inaction, and failing to keep his client adequately informed about the events in her case. The respondents neglect of this matter, when combined with his gross neglect in two prior disciplinary matters, constituted a pattern of neglect. This misconduct, together with his failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the
30
investigation and processing of this matter, warranted disbarment. HoeChin Kim appeared before the Supreme Court on behalf of the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was previously disciplined: Suspended in 1997 and 2000. James A. Fox Reprimanded on June 22, 2010 (202 N.J. 136) for negligently misappropriating client funds due to poor recordkeeping practices including failure to maintain a receipts and disbursements journal and proper ledger cards, use of improper designations on business account checks and bank statements, and failure to reconcile his trust account. In addition, respondent commingled earned fees and other personal funds with client and escrow funds held in the trust account. Janice L. Richter appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Random Audit Program. Ralph V. Furino, Jr. Reprimanded on September 21, 2010 (203 N.J. 425) for grossly neglecting a personal injury matter and failing to act diligently by permitting the complaint to be dismissed for lack of prosecution and not discovering the dismissal for over four years, and for failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case. Respondent also engaged in two conflicts of interest by representing the client while respondent concurrently possessed an interest in a potential or pending malpractice claim against him by the client, and by providing financial assistance of $3,000 to the client. Maureen S. Binetti appeared before the DRB for District VIII and respondent appeared pro se. Alfred V. Gellene Reprimanded on September 8, 2010 (203 N.J. 443) for gross neglect, pattern of neglect, and lack of diligence by failing to timely file three appellate briefs. Respondent also failed to communicate with his client in two of the matters and he failed to appear on the return date of an order to show cause and failed to notify the court that he would not appear. Michael C. Gaus appeared before the DRB for District VB and Edward J. Gilhooly appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Privately reprimanded in 1990 and again in 1991; admonished in 2009. Pasquale F. Giannetta Admonished on June 25, 2010 (Unreported) for negligently misappropriating client funds by inadvertently transferring $5000 from his trust account, instead of his business account, to a personal bank account, delaying the delivery of two checks to third party medical providers, and committing several recordkeeping violations. Walton W. Kingsbery, III appeared before the DRB for the
OAE and respondent appeared pro se. Mark E. Gold Disbarred on a certified record on March 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 414) for knowingly misappropriating client and escrow funds and for failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Lee A. Gronikowski appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was previously disciplined: Suspended in 2007 and temporarily suspended in 2009. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Jeff H. Goldsmith Censured on a certified record on February 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 161) for failure to timely complete post-closing steps in a real estate transaction by not properly filing a deed until two years after the closing. Michael I. Lubin appeared before the DRB for District IIB and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was previously disciplined: Privately reprimanded in 1994; admonished in 2002, and censured in 2007. Andrys Sofia Gomez Reprimanded on February 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 117) for improperly certifying as accurate a HUD-1 Statement knowing that it misrepresented that the buyer had brought funds to the closing, that money had been escrowed for taxes, and that the seller had received funds from the sale. Additionally, respondent notarized a deed which was not signed in her presence. Melissa A. Czartoryski appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent waived appearance. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 2003. Arleen Caballero Gonzalez Censured on a certified record on June 1, 2010 (202 N.J. 29) for misconduct in two client matters. In one matter, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by appearing in a Philadelphia court while on inactive status in Pennsylvania. In both matters, respondent lacked diligence and failed to communicate with clients. Willis F. Flower appeared before the DRB for District I and respondent failed to appear. Gabriel F. Gonzalez Suspended for three months on a certified record effective November 16, 2010 (204 N.J. 75) for leaving obscene and threatening messages on a former clients answering machine, and shattering the former clients living room window by throwing a hammer through it. Susan Singer appeared before the DRB for District VA and respondent failed to appear.
31
Raymond Goodwin Reprimanded on October 19, 2010 (203 N.J. 583) for commingling personal and trust funds when he deposited the proceeds from the refinance of his personal residence into his trust account, failing to comply with the recordkeeping rules by failing to maintain any type of recordkeeping system, and practicing law while ineligible to do so. Nitza I. Blasini appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent waived appearance. David R. Gross Suspended for three months effective June 2, 2010 (202 N.J. 39) for dishonesty, failing to disclose to his law firm his receipt of $100,000 from a client and failing to disburse these funds to the firm in violation of a law firm policy that all gains received from the practice of law belonged to the firm. Janice L. Richter appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and Justin Walder appeared for the respondent. Michael R. Halbfish Censured on April 20, 2010 (Unreported) for misconduct in two client matters. In one matter, respondent negligently misappropriated trust funds, commingled funds, and committed recordkeeping violations. In the other matter, respondent undertook the representation of a client but did not file a complaint in a timely manner, and did not serve the complaint for almost seven months after it was filed, thereby resulting in its dismissal for lack of prosecution. Moreover, respondent did not advise the client of the status of his case and failed to withdraw from representation when it became clear he could not adequately represent the client because of office difficulties. John McGill, III appeared before the DRB for the OAE and John A. Tunney represented the respondent. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Stephanie A. Hand Admonished on September 29, 2010 (Unreported) for failing to act diligently in her capacity as attorney for the purchaser of real estate from a buyer in bankruptcy by not ascertaining whether the bankruptcy court had approved the sale and by not turning over the proceeds of the sale to the bankruptcy trustee. Christina Blunda Kennedy appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Thomas Ashley appeared for the respondent. Douglas B. Hanna Admonished on September 28, 2010 (Unreported) for failing to properly supervise his bookkeeper and to assure that his accounting practices were sufficient to prevent the misappropriation of trust funds. Respondent also permitted a non-lawyer to sign trust account checks and failed to maintain appropriate client ledger books
and checkbooks with running balances. Christina Blunda Kennedy appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. Thomas A. Harley Reprimanded on February 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 121) for practicing law while he was on the Supreme Courts list of ineligible attorneys for failure to pay the annual assessment to the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection. Mitchell Goldstein appeared before the DRB for District VA and Michael DAlessio represented the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Private reprimand in 1994; admonition in 1995. Jerramiah T. Healy Admonished on June 15, 2010 (Unreported) as a result of his convictions of the disorderly persons offenses of obstructing the administration of justice and resisting arrest. Specifically, respondent interrupted a police officer who was investigating a disturbance, refused to leave when repeatedly asked to do so by the police, and resisted when the police tried to place him under arrest. Nitza I. Blasini appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Michael Murphy appeared for the respondent. Daniel David Hediger Censured on July 15, 2010 (202 N.J. 337) for failing to act diligently by not properly recording a deed until almost fifteen months following the closing. David Edelberg appeared before the DRB for District IIB and Joseph Castiglia appeared for the respondent. The respondent has an extensive ethics history: Reprimanded in 2004; censured twice in 2007; and reprimand again in 2008. Bruce D. Hersh Disbarred by consent on December 10, 2010 (204 N.J. 284) for knowingly misappropriating client funds totaling $172,278.90. John McGill, III represented the OAE and Robert J. DeGroot represented the respondent. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification System. Christopher P. Hummel Censured on a certified record on November 1, 2010 (204 N.J. 32) for grossly neglecting and failing to act diligently in a client matter by not filing an answer to a complaint and permitting a default judgment to be entered against the client. In addition, respondent failed to promptly reply to the clients request for information about the matter. Moreover, respondent misrepresented in a certification in support of a motion to vacate the default judgment that his client had a meritorious defense for setting aside the judgment. Lisbeth W. Cload appeared before the DRB for District IIB and respondent failed to appear.
32
Fernando Iamurri Admonished on February 4, 2010 (Unreported) as a result of respondents negligent misappropriation of clients funds due to poor accounting practices involving the inadvertent deposit of funds into his business account instead of his trust account, complicated by significant personal problems. Janice L. Richter appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. Dawn L. Jackson Disbarred on a certified record on February 1, 2010 (201 N.J. 100) for various acts of misconduct. Specifically, respondent knowingly misappropriated client and escrow funds in excess of $50,000 and used those funds for her own purposes. Respondent also forged a clients name on a loan agreement, misrepresented to the lender that the client had signed it, fraudulently obtained $25,000 from the lender, and then used the funds for her own purposes. Moreover, respondent entered into retainer agreements with six clients, received fees from them, and then abandoned them. Finally, respondent failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Janice L. Richter appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was temporarily suspended on March 10, 2009. Gary T. Jodha Censured on November 29, 2010 (204 N.J. 177) for lack of diligence in immigration matters by failing to ensure that his records of his clients addresses were correct, failing to obtain a clients travel authorization or permanent resident status, failing to take appropriate steps to notify clients about an adjustment of status interview, and failing to attend the adjustment of status interview. Azzmeiah R. Vazquez appeared before the DRB for District VII and David H. Dugan appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 2002. Michael S. Kimm Admonished on January 28, 2010 (Unreported) for improperly calculating his contingent fee in a personal injury matter based on the gross recovery, rather than on the net recovery, and for improperly advancing more than $17,000 to his client, prior to the conclusion of the personal injury matter. Joseph R. Donahue appeared before the DRB for District IIB and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Censured in 2007. Matthew J. Kirnan Disbarred by consent on September 17, 2010 (203 N.J. 375) for knowingly misappropriating clients trust funds. Christina Blunda Kennedy represented the OAE before the
Supreme Court and Glenn R. Reiser represented the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Suspended in 2003. Alison Ellen Kosberg Reprimanded on June 29, 2010 (202 N.J. 141) for engaging in poor recordkeeping practices thereby enabling his bookkeeper to steal over $66,000 in client trust funds which resulted in repeated negligent misappropriations of client trust funds. Michael J. Sweeney appeared before the DRB for the OAE and the respondent appeared pro se. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Random Audit Compliance Program. Christos P. Kotsogiannis Disbarred by consent on May 19, 2010 (202 N.J. 27) for knowingly misappropriating client escrow funds. Walton W. Kingsbery, III represented the OAE before the Supreme Court and Amelio P. Marino, Esq. of New York, New York represented the respondent. Michael D. Landis Admonished on March 19, 2010 (Unreported) for unilaterally disbursing real estate escrow funds to his client during an active dispute between the client and the sellers over entitlement to the funds. Marie A. Accardi appeared before the DRB for the District IX and respondent appeared pro se. Jared Lans Censured on March 22, 2010 (202 N.J. 2) for assisting his client in the commission of fraud by representing the client in the assignment of clients rights in a judgment to a third party knowing that the client no longer had any rights to the judgment as a result of having already assigned the judgment to another party, and never disclosing this fact to the third party. The respondent then deposited into his trust account a $69,000 payment made by the third party pursuant to the assignment agreement and disbursed that money to his client knowing that the client was not entitled to it. Respondent also represented the client in an agreement for the satisfaction of the judgment in installments without disclosing to counsel for the person against whom the judgment had been obtained that the client no longer had any right to the judgment. Then, when respondent received a $37,000 payment in partial satisfaction of the judgment, he released those funds to his client instead of to the parties to whom the client had assigned the judgment. Melissa A. Czartoryski represented the OAE before the DRB and Scott Piekarsky represented the respondent. Jeffrey D. Lavenhar Disbarred on February 23, 2010 (201 N.J. 148) based on respondents
33
disbarment in the State of Colorado for knowingly misappropriating funds which were mistakenly sent to him. Michael J. Sweeney appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. Wilfred LeBlanc, Jr. Suspended for six months on a certified record on July 8, 2010 (202 N.J. 129) for failing to comply with the provisions of R. 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys. Walton W. Kingsbery, III appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was previously disciplined: Censured in 2006; reprimanded in 2007; and suspended in 2008. Phil E. Leone Disbarred on June 1, 2010 (202 N.J. 127) for knowingly misappropriating client funds in two matters and escrow funds in a third matter. Janice L. Richter appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and Martin J. Arbus appeared for the respondent. Walter A. Lesnevich Admonished on July 28, 2010 (Unreported) for engaging in a conflict of interest by representing a husband in a divorce matter after the respondent had represented the husband and wife in a personal injury matter. Patricia Ann Kieck appeared before the DRB for District IIB and Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich appeared for the respondent. Gary Peter Levin Disbarred by consent on October 12, 2010 (203 N.J. 577) for knowingly misappropriating estate trust funds. Melissa A. Czartoryski represented the OAE and Frederick J. Dennehy represented the respondent. Gary S. Lewis Admonished on February 1, 2010 (Unreported) for applying settlement proceeds in one client matter to respondents earned fee in another matter being handled for the same client. Jonathan R. Mehl appeared before the DRB for District VC and respondent appeared pro se. Louis Macchiaverna Reprimanded on October 19, 2010 (203 N.J. 584) for negligently misappropriating client funds as a result of poor recordkeeping practices. Melissa A. Czartoryski appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent waived appearance. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Edward A. MacDuffie, Jr. Reprimanded on June 29, 2010 (202 N.J. 138) for negligently misappropriating client funds due to poor bookkeeping practices including failure to reconcile
his trust account on a monthly basis for an extended period of time. HoeChin Kim appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 2008. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Random Audit Compliance Program. Kevin H. Main Admonished on April 30, 2010 (Unreported) for failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of a grievance alleging gross neglect. Julie Cavanagh appeared before the DRB for District VII and respondent appeared pro se. Nicholas R. Manzi Censured on a certified record on July 15, 2010 (202 N.J. 339) for failing to act diligently in a personal injury matter by permitting the complaint to be dismissed and failing to take steps to have it reinstated, and for failing to inform the client of the dismissal, the ramifications of the dismissal and the options available to him. In addition, the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by continuing to practice law after being placed on the IOLTA ineligible list as a result of his failure to comply with the requirements of R. 1:28A-2. Norberto Yacono appeared before the DRB for District XI and respondent failed to appear. Theresa A. Markham Censured on July 14, 2010 (202 N.J. 568) for directing her secretary to engage in unethical conduct by instructing her to threaten a divorce client that respondent might withdraw from representation if the client did not pay respondents bill prior to the scheduled divorce hearing. Respondent then attempted to engage in a conflict of interest by threatening the client that her divorce would not go forward if client did not sign a consent lien on all of her assets to secure the respondents fee. Respondent also engaged in conduct involving dishonesty by failing to turn over the original lien documents to the disciplinary investigator despite several requests to do so, and producing a consent lien that did not contain all of the provisions present in the original document. Eric S. Solotoff appeared before the DRB for District XB and respondent appeared pro se. Ian W. Marrero Disbarred on a certified record on October 26, 2010 (204 N.J. 30) for knowingly misappropriating $75,000 in escrow funds. Janice L. Richter appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was temporarily suspended in 2009. Tyrone M. McDonnell Suspended for three
34
months effective July 30, 2010 (202 N.J. 142) for failing to safeguard client funds. Specifically, respondent permitted two clients to deposit funds into his attorney trust account and to disburse funds from that account. Respondent failed to keep an accurate accounting of the clients deposits and disbursements which resulted in one of the clients disbursing funds in excess of his deposits, thereby resulting in the invasion of funds belonging to respondents clients. Janice L. Richter appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Bernard Meiterman Disbarred on June 1, 2010 (202 N.J. 31) as a result of respondents criminal conviction in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, for using the United States mail to promote and facilitate a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1952(a)(3) and (2). Specifically, respondent bribed a public official to expedite sewer connection approvals for land developments and coached an individual to lie to law enforcement authorities and/or a federal grand jury. Christina Blunda Kennedy appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was temporarily suspended following his guilty plea to the federal crime. Jeffrey E. Michelson Disbarred by consent on March 19, 2010 (202 N.J. 1) as a result of respondents guilty plea to a one-count Information charging him with bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1344 and Sec. 2. Specifically, respondent, in his capacity as CEO of a company that distributed tobacco, candy and other sundries, altered checks he received from companies doing business with him, resulting in fraudulent deposits in excess of $537,000 to accounts controlled by him. Respondent also presented worthless checks totaling approximately 3.5 million dollars to create temporary credit for his companys operating accounts, and submitted fictitious documents in order to inflate his companys asset balance. Nitza I. Blasini represented the OAE and Jeffrey M. Advokat represented the respondent. John A. Miele, III Disbarred by consent on October 8, 2010 (203 N.J. 535) for knowingly misappropriating clients trust funds. Michael J. Sweeney represented the OAE before the Supreme Court and Stanley F. Werse represented the respondent. This matter was discovered solely by the Random Audit Compliance Program. Morton S. Minsley Admonished on February 25,
2010 (Unreported) for grossly neglecting a clients civil matter by not filing a complaint until after the expiration of the statute of limitations, thereby resulting in a dismissal of the case. Respondent thereafter negotiated a settlement of his clients claim against him and had the client sign a release without advising the client to seek independent legal advice. Janice L. Richter appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. John A. Misci, Jr. Reprimanded on October 5, 2010 (203 N.J. 429) for not reducing to writing the rate or basis of the fee charged to a client in a municipal court matter and for not filing an answer to the complaint charging unethical conduct. Nitza I. Blasini appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. Thomas P. Monahan Censured on January 19, 2010 (201 N.J. 2) for submitting two certifications to a federal district court, in support of a motion to extend the time within which to file an appeal, in which he misrepresented that when the appeal was due to be filed, he was seriously ill and confined to his home on bed rest and, therefore, either unable to work or unable to prepare and file the appeal. Respondent also practiced law while ineligible to do so for failure to pay the annual assessment to the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection. George P. Barbatsuly appeared before the DRB for District VA and Edward W. Cillick appeared on behalf of the respondent. John P. Morris Censured on May 17, 2010 (202 N.J. 47) for lacking diligence in preparing an appellate brief and appendix on behalf of a criminal defendant client, failing to expedite litigation by taking an inordinate amount of time to analyze the issues on appeal and to prepare the brief, failing to keep his client informed about the status of the matter, and misrepresenting to his client and clients mother the completion and filing dates for the brief and appendix. Dean J. Buono appeared before the DRB for District IIIB and Vincent J. Pancari appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 1996; reprimanded in 1998, and admonished again in 2008. Anthony F. Natale Disbarred by consent on March 16, 2010 (201 N.J. 205) as a result of respondents guilty plea to a one-count Information charging him with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371. Specifically, respondent conspired with others to fraudulently obtain money and property from lenders and others by making materially false and misleading representations and
35
omissions in loan documents and other supporting information. Nitza I. Blasini represented the OAE and Frank P. Arleo represented the respondent. H. Alton Neff Admonished on June 1, 2010 (202 N.J. 35) for engaging in a conflict of interest by simultaneously representing the buyers and the seller in a real estate transaction and by failing to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary for his clients to make informed decisions about the representation. Stacey Kerr appeared before the DRB for District IIIA and Carl D. Poplar appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Privately reprimanded in 1987, censured in 2005. Felix Nihamin Admonished on June 14, 2010 (Unreported) for negligently misappropriating client escrow funds and failure to safeguard funds due to deficient recordkeeping practices. Respondent also commingled personal funds in his trust account. Christina Blunda-Kennedy appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Raymond A. Oliver Admonished on May 24, 2010 (Unreported) for listing on his letterhead three attorneys with whom he had no professional relationship, including two sitting judges, as being of counsel to his firm. Respondent also included the caption lawyers litigators land developers under the firms name, thereby improperly creating the impression that his firm was in some way involved in the business of land development. Patrick J. Monahan, Jr. appeared before the DRB for the Committee on Attorney Advertising and respondent appeared pro se. William H. Oliver Censured on September 8, 2010 (203 N.J. 382) for grossly neglecting a real estate transaction that was subject to a bankruptcy petition by failing to properly review the HUD statement which contained obvious errors, including an incorrect purchase price and a questionable fee, failing to adequately communicate with his clients, and failing to comply with the bankruptcy trustees several demands for the return of the real estate fee he collected without first obtaining the permission of the bankruptcy court. Maureen G. Bauman appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Paul E. Newell appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 1999 and again in 2004.
Richard S. Panitch Censured on February 9, 2010 (Unreported) for grossly neglecting a clients wrongful termination case by failing to comply with discovery requests and by confirming a deposition scheduled by the defendants without advising his client who, as a result, was not aware of the deposition and did not attend. Respondents failures and actions resulted in the filing of several motions seeking to compel discover, dismiss the complaint, and fees and expenses associated with the deposition client did not attend. Respondent did not inform the client of the pendency of two of the motions or of the resulting court orders awarding the defendants attorneys fees incurred in obtaining the court orders as well as attorneys fees and expenses associated with the missed deposition. The orders provided that client and respondent were jointly and severally liable for all amounts owed to the defendants. The respondent then engaged in deceit and misrepresentation by advising the client that she alone was responsible for counsel fees and costs awarded by the court because she had missed the deposition. Peter James Hendricks appeared before the DRB for District VIII and Arthur H. Miller appeared for the respondent. Harold J. Pareti Admonished on February 4, 2010 (Unreported) for failing to act diligently in two real estate matters involving the same client. In one matter, respondent did not properly file a deed or pay various fees until three months after the closing. In the other matter, respondent did not pay fees from the proceeds of the sale until four months after the closing and only after the threat of a lien. Additionally, the client was unable to locate the respondent. Terence M. Scott appeared before the DRB for District XI and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 2009. Michael G. Pellegrino Reprimanded on October 26, 2010 (Unreported) for engaging in a conflict of interest by representing a client in the purchase of tax lien certificates from other individuals and entities from whom respondent and his law firm prosecuted tax lien foreclosures. Respondent also failed to set forth the rate or basis of his legal fee. Bruce Ackerman represented the District XB Ethics Committee and Gerard E. Hanlon represented the respondent on a motion for discipline by consent granted by the DRB. Eric S. Pennington Admonished on August 3, 2010 (Unreported) for failing to timely set forth in writing the rate or basis of his fee. Lori E. Grifa appeared before the DRB for District VA and
36
Michael Critchley appeared for the respondent. Duane T. Phillips Admonished on February 26, 2010 (Unreported) for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by representing a client in divorce proceeding in Nevada, a state where the respondent was not licensed to practice law. Gina M. Merritt appeared before the DRB for District I and respondent appeared pro se. Wayne Powell Reprimanded on September 8, 2010 (203 N.J. 441) for misconduct in two personal injury matters, including engaging in a conflict of interest by representing the passengers and driver of a vehicle involved in an accident, failing to provide clients with written contingent fee agreements, and failing to turn over clients files to their new attorney. Christine Cockerill appeared before the DRB for District IV and Carl D. Poplar appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 1995 and again in 1997. Deirdre A. Przygoda Disbarred by consent on December 6, 2010 (203 N.J. 283) for knowingly misappropriating client funds in excess of $250,000. John McGill, III represented the OAE and Peter W. Kenny represented the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Temporarily suspended on October 12, 2010. Samuel Rak Reprimanded on a certified record on September 8, 2010 (203 N.J. 381) for grossly neglecting and failing to act diligently in a bankruptcy matter, failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Arlene R. Cohn appeared before the DRB for District IIB and respondent failed to appear. James K. Record Suspended for three years on September 27, 2010 (203 N.J. 426) for failing to safeguard in trust his clients trust funds, recklessly misappropriating the clients funds, and engaging in deception through a cover-up of his misdeeds. Respondent also manufactured a false drivers license bearing his brothers information and presented it to a police officer in an effort to avoid detection that he was driving while on the suspended list. Janice L. Richter appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent waived appearance. Emil T. Restaino Suspended for six months effective July 1, 2010 (202 N.J. 33) for misconduct in two client matters, including lack of diligence, failure to communicate with client, failure to set forth, in
writing, the rate or basis of his fee, and misrepresentation. Nancy S. Feinberg appeared before the DRB for District VC and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Privately reprimanded in 1991; suspended in 1992 and 1996. Loren K. Robinson Disbarred on a certified record on January 6, 2010 (200 N.J. 577) for knowingly misappropriating client trust funds by transferring them to her personal checking account without the knowledge or permission of the clients and then using those funds for her personal expenses. Janice L. Richter appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on February 3, 2009. David S. Rochman Reprimanded on June 15, 2010 (202 N.J. 133) for lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client, and failure to return fees to a client. Christine P. OHearn appeared before the DRB for District IV and respondent appeared pro se. Donald S. Rosanelli Suspended for three months on a certified record on September 21, 2010 (203 N.J. 378) for grossly neglecting a criminal matter, failing to act diligently, failing to communicate with the client, failing to return an unearned retainer, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Stephen Vincent Falanga appeared before the DRB for District VA and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was previously disciplined: Suspended in 2003 and temporarily suspended in 2009 for failure to satisfy a fee arbitration determination resulting from the representation that gave rise to the current ethics charges. Thomas C. Roselli Reprimanded on November 15, 2010 (204 N.J. 72) for grossly neglecting a personal injury matter and failing to act diligently by permitting the complaint to be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In addition, respondent failed to reply to his clients reasonable requests for information about the case for more than two years and, during this time, he made misrepresentations to his client about the status of the case. Tara N. Auciello appeared before the DRB for District VIII and respondent appeared pro se. Felicia B. Russell Reprimanded on March 17, 2010 (201 N.J. 410) for notorizing a signature on a mortgage that she did not witness. Christina Blunda Kennedy represented the OAE before the DRB and David H. Dugan, III represented the respondent. The
37
respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 2009. Rodrigo H. Sanchez Censured on November 16, 2010 (204 N.J. 73) as a result of respondents guilty plea in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, to one count of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor. HoeChin Kim appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Thomas Ashley appeared for the respondent. Richard P. Saunders Censured on April 30, 2010 (202 N.J. 11) for grossly neglecting the post-closing aspects of a real estate transaction by not paying the realty transfer tax and not recording the deed for a period of two years; misrepresenting to the OAE that he had recorded the deed, knowing that he had not yet done so; and negligently misappropriating the funds he held for the realty transfer tax by removing from those funds a legal fee earned in connection with an unrelated matter he handled for the client. Also, respondent negligently misappropriated other client funds as a result of his failure to reconcile his trust account records. Michael J. Sweeney represented the OAE and Raymond F. Flood represented the respondent. This matter was discovered solely by the Random Audit Compliance Program. Rhondi L. Schwartz Admonished on June 16, 2010 (Unreported) for using pre-signed signature pages for certifications submitted to the bankruptcy court with applications for stay relief. Melissa A. Czartoryski appeared before the DRB for the OAE and Kevin H. Marino appeared for the respondent. Hal J. Shaffer Disbarred on May 4, 2010 (202 N.J. 46) for the knowing misappropriation of trust funds in four client matters. Walton W. Kingsbery, III appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and the respondent appeared pro se. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Daniel N. Shapiro Reprimanded on February 25, 2010 (201 N.J. 201) for misconduct in two client matters. In one matter, respondent engaged in gross neglect and lack of diligence by failing to probate the decedents will, to settle the estate, and to re-file pleadings that had been rejected by the court. In the second matter, respondent failed to set forth in writing the basis or rate of his fee and lacked diligence by failing to forward his clients discovery responses to defense counsel and by failing to oppose the defendants motions to dismiss the complaint, which were granted. Additionally, in both matters,
respondent failed to communicate with his clients. N. Ari Weisbrot appeared before the DRB for District IIB and respondent appeared pro se. Respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 2002. Neal Sharma Suspended for six months on a certified record on October 5, 2010 (203 N.J. 430) for failing to comply with New Jersey Court Rule 1:2020, which requires a suspended attorney to, among other things, notify all clients in pending matters of the attorneys suspension, and to file with the Director of the Office of Attorney Ethics a detailed affidavit specifying how the suspended attorney has complied with the provisions of the rule. Janice L. Richter appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded and censured in 2006; suspended in 2008. Dan Solomon Smith Admonished on March 31, 2010 (Unreported) for misconduct in two client matters including gross neglect, lack of diligence and failure to communicate with clients. Francis X. Dee appeared before the DRB for District VB and respondent appeared pro se. Nathan Snyder On June 1, 2010, respondent was ordered to perform three-way reconciliations of his attorney trust account on a monthly basis and submit proof thereof to the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of six months (202 N.J. 28). This Order was entered as a result of respondent failing to supervise his secretary and failing to perform monthly reconciliations of his trust account, thereby enabling his secretarys theft of over $11,000 of trust funds to go undetected for more than one year. Nitza I. Blasini appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent appeared pro se. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Gregory J. Spadea Admonished on June 30, 2010 (Unreported) for affixing his jurat to several living will documents that had been signed outside of his presence. David Andrew Haworth appeared before the DRB for District IV and David John Khawam appeared for the respondent. Jeffrey Squitieri Censured on November 16, 2010 (204 N.J. 219) for misconduct in five matters, including gross neglect, lack of diligence and failure to communicate with clients in four personal injury matters, and failure to promptly deliver funds to a third party in a fifth matter. David Catuogno appeared before the DRB for District IIA, Lee A. Gronikowski appeared for the OAE and Gregory J.
38
Irwin appeared for the respondent. Geoffrey L. Steiert Reprimanded on February 9, 2010 (201 N.J. 119) for practicing law while ineligible to do so due to his request to be placed on the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection list of retired attorneys. Respondent also misrepresented to a third party that he had his clients authorization to present an offer of settlement and that his client intended to settle the matter for a certain amount. Jean Sharon Chetney appeared before the DRB for District IV and respondent appeared pro se. Arthur E. Swidler Suspended for three months on a certified record effective August 13, 2010 (202 N.J. 334) for negligently misappropriating client trust funds, committing numerous recordkeeping deficiencies, failing to collect funds required in two real estate transactions, failing to make payments after one of the real estate transactions, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of this matter. Michael J. Sweeney appeared before the DRB for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 2007 and temporarily suspended for failure to comply with a fee arbitration determination directing him to refund $700 to another client. This matter was discovered solely by the Random Audit Compliance Program. Robert W. Taylor Admonished on February 4, 2010 (Unreported) for engaging in a conflict of interest by representing a client in a will contest against a former client. Michael L. Dermody appeared before the DRB for District VI and the respondent appeared pro se. Herbert J. Tan Reprimanded on March 22, 2010 (202 N.J. 3) for failing to act diligently in ensuring that his client, who had a language barrier, fully understood the ramifications of her decisions regarding the representation and for failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities by ignoring the investigators letters requesting client files and dates when he would be available for interviews. Irvin Freilich appeared before the DRB for District VA and respondent appeared pro se. The respondent was previously disciplined: Reprimanded in 2006. A. Dennis Terrell Admonished on October 5, 2010 (Unreported) for committing assault by auto, driving while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident. Nitza I. Blasini appeared before the DRB for the OAE and the respondent appeared pro se.
Gary R. Thompson Disbarred on June 15, 2010 (202 N.J. 132) for knowingly misappropriating settlement funds in two personal injury cases by forging the clients names on the releases and settlement checks, depositing the checks into his personal bank account, and then spending the funds. Walton W. Kingsbery, III appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and Gerald Hanlon appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Privately reprimanded in 1990. Ronald M. Thompson Admonished on June 23, 2010 (Unreported) for grossly neglecting a personal injury matter and failing to act diligently by allowing a complaint filed on behalf of a minor to be dismissed for failure to serve the defendant and then waiting for more than one year to file a motion to restore the complaint, which was denied. Respondent also failed to file a new lawsuit after the minor turned eighteen and allowed the statute of limitations to run. Moreover, respondent failed to keep the minor and her parents apprised of the status to the case and did not advise them that the case was dismissed, that the motion to restore was denied, or that the minor had two years after reaching the age of eighteen to file a complaint in her name alone. David Della-Badia appeared before the DRB for District VB and respondent appeared pro se. Terrance N. Toner Disbarred on February 22, 2010 (Unreported) for knowingly misappropriating client funds which he improperly placed in his attorney business account. In addition, respondent grossly neglected a collection matter and failed to act diligently by allegedly negotiating a reduced settlement with the creditors attorney and then failing to turn over any funds to the creditors attorney and by failing to attend to the creditors attorneys subpoena and subsequent motion, causing a warrant to be issued for the clients arrest. Michael J. Sweeney appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and James P. Nolan, Jr. appeared for the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Admonished in 2003 and temporarily suspended on April 1, 2009. Nola Trustan Suspended for three months effective April 22, 2010 (202 N.J. 4) for multiple acts of misconduct including entering into a business transaction with a client, and providing financial assistance to the client by purchasing a home in respondents name for the benefit of the client, who was defending against a motion for change of custody based on a claim that client was unable to provide her children with a suitable home.
39
Respondent also submitted to the court a Case Information Statement that respondent knew contained a false statement by the client that she owned the home which respondent had purchased for her, and a reply certification which falsely represented that client had paid the deposit and all closing costs related to the home. Then, after the termination of respondents representation of her client, respondent suggested in an email to her former clients ex-husband, who was the grievant in this matter, that, if he dismissed the grievance, she would give him information showing that his ex-wife was not providing appropriate care and housing for their children, in order to assist him in gaining custody. Michael Nolan appeared before the DRB for District IIIA and David H. Dugan, III appeared for the respondent. Stephen Tsai Disbarred on October 19, 2010 (203 N.J. 581) for knowingly misappropriating escrow funds by using them to pay for personal expenses without the permission of the individuals to whom the funds belonged. Respondent also failed to timely forward payments for title insurance in four transactions, and he was guilty of commingling personal and client funds and recordkeeping deficiencies. Janice L. Richter appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and Jeffrey M. Advokat appeared for the respondent. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Robert A. Ungvary Admonished on March 31, 2010 (Unreported) for lacking diligence in the representation of two clients and failing to promptly deliver portions of their file to their new counsel. Linda Couso Puccio appeared before the DRB for District XI and respondent appeared pro se. Henry A. Walsh, Jr. Disbarred on a certified record on June 15, 2010 (202 N.J. 134) for practicing law while suspended, gross neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities during the investigation and processing of these matters. Christina Blunda Kennedy appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and respondent failed to appear. The respondent has an extensive disciplinary history: Reprimanded in 2006; censured in 2007, and suspended twice in 2008. Elwood J. Walzer Censured on October 19, 2010 (203 N.J. 581) for shoplifting merchandise from a blind vendor on at least fourteen occasions over the course of more than one month. Michael J. Sweeney appeared before the DRB for the OAE and the
respondent waived appearance for oral argument. John L. Weichsel Admonished on April 23, 2010 (Unreported) for failing to communicate with a client in connection with a post conviction relief motion. Christopher E. Torkelson appeared before the DRB for District VII and respondent appeared pro se. James S. Weiss Disbarred by consent on April 29, 2010 (202 N.J. 36) for knowingly misappropriating client trust and escrow funds. Lee A. Gronikowski represented the OAE before the Supreme Court and Justin T. Loughry represented the respondent. This matter was discovered solely as a result of the Trust Overdraft Notification Program. Karin R. White-Morgen Suspended for three years effective July 1, 2010 (202 N.J. 29) as a result of her disbarment in the State of Florida. The Florida disbarment was based on respondents unauthorized use of her deceased mother-in-laws department store credit card to purchase items for herself and her then husband. Respondent also converted substantial amounts of her incapacitated father-in-laws funds. Walton W. Kingsbery, III appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and Gerard E. Hanlon appeared for the respondent. Avis Cole Williams Disbarred by consent on September 23, 2010 (203 N.J. 495) as a result of respondents criminal conviction in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, for second degree distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:355, and for fourth degree issuing a bad check, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-5. Nitza I. Blasini represented the OAE and James J. Leonard, Jr. represented the respondent. The respondent was previously disciplined: Temporarily suspended in 2008. David J. Witherspoon Suspended for one year effective August 24, 2010 (203 N.J. 343) for offering discounted legal services or fee reductions to three female clients and the daughter of another client in exchange for sexual favors, practicing law while ineligible to do so for failure to pay the annual assessment to the New Jersey Lawyers Fund for Client Protection, and failing to maintain the books and records required of attorneys. John McGill, III appeared before the Supreme Court for the OAE and Bernard K Freamon appeared for the respondent. The respondent has a significant prior disciplinary history: Admonished in 2002; reprimanded on 2003; admonished again in 2003; and censured in 2008.
40
v.
OTHER RELATED ACTIONS

The attorney disciplinary system also handles a significant number of other related actions involving new Jersey attorneys. During 2010, a total of 141 such actions were undertaken, including: transfers to disability-inactive status; contested Committee on Character (Character Committee) cases; Bar Admission cases alleging cheating; prosecutions for contempt of a Supreme Court Order to cease practicing law by suspended or disbarred lawyers; diversionary actions by which attorneys who commit minor misconduct may avoid discipline if they complete specific conditions; reinstatement proceedings where suspended attorneys seek to again practice law; and matters where disciplined lawyers are monitored for a period of time after discipline is imposed.
A.
DISABILITY-INACTIVE STATUS Disability-Inactive Status is imposed by the Supreme Court where an attorney lacks the mental or physical capacity to practice law. R. 1:20-12. while often imposed in conjunction with an attorney disciplinary investigation or prosecution, this status is, by itself, non-disciplinary in nature. During 2010, a total of four (4) attorneys were the subject of a disability-inactive Order. This represents a 100% increase from 2009 when two (2) attorneys were also so transferred. Prior years results were: 2008 1; 2007 3; and 2006 4. During this 5-year period, an average of 2.8 lawyers per year was placed into disability-inactive status.
B.
CHARACTER COMMITTEE / BAR ADMISSIONS / CONTEMPT 1. CHARACTER COMMITTEE when there is a substantial question as to whether an applicant for admission to the bar has demonstrated the moral fitness requisite for admission to practice law in this state, the matter may be brought for oral argument before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court assigns the OAE to represent the Character Committee at all oral arguments. Initially, all applications for admission to the bar are reviewed by the Character Committee, whose proceedings are conducted in accordance with R. 1:25. The Character Committees purpose is to determine the applicants fitness to practice. In order to meet fitness requirements, a bar applicant must possess the traits of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and reliability. It is the applicant who bears the burden of proving fitness. The Character Committee may hold hearings, after which a recommendation, either to certify or to withhold certification, is filed with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may schedule the matter for oral argument, where the OAE presents the case. This year, the one Order to Show Cause that was issued by the Supreme Court had not been decided by years end. Since 2001, the Supreme Court has heard and decided a total of 32 character cases after argument. All Character Committee proceedings are confidential. 2. BAR ADMISSIOnS where a bar applicant is suspected of cheating on the states bar examination test, the Supreme Court assigns the matter to the OAE for investigation and, if warranted, prosecution.
41
The OAE was assigned one such investigation in 2006. no such cases were assigned in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010. 3. COnTEMPT Prosecutions for contempt of Supreme Court under R. 1:20-16(i) is another category of cases entrusted to the OAE. These actions involve the improper, continued practice of law by suspended and disbarred attorneys. The OAE may file and prosecute an action for contempt before the Assignment Judge of the vicinage where the respondent engaged in the prohibited practice of law. It also has the authority to file disciplinary complaints against offending attorneys seeking sanctions for their violations. There were no prosecutions for contempt of Supreme Court in 2010. C. DIVERSIONS The diversionary program allows attorneys who have committed minor unethical conduct to be diverted from the disciplinary system. Minor misconduct is behavior that would likely warrant no more than an admonition (the least serious sanction) if the matter proceeded to a hearing. Determinations to divert matters of minor misconduct are made only by the Director, OAE. A grievant is given ten days notice to comment prior to the OAE Directors final decision to divert the case. That judgment to divert a case is not appealable by a grievant. Diversion may take place only if the attorney acknowledges a mistake and agrees to take some remedial steps (sometimes beneficial to the grievant). The primary purpose of diversion is education and the productive resolution of disputes between clients and attorneys outside of the disciplinary process. It also permits the disciplinary system to focus resources on more serious cases. Diversion conditions generally do not exceed a period of six months. If successfully completed, the underlying grievance is dismissed with no record of discipline. If diversion is unsuccessful, a disciplinary complaint is filed and prosecuted. During calendar year 2010, a total of 85 requests for diversion were received by the OAE; four were declined, leaving 81 approved. By the end of the year, 61 diversions were successfully completed and 20 were still pending from 2010 and prior years. Occasionally, some respondents agree to diversion and then fail to complete the agreed conditions. This year, a total of 4 respondents failed diversion. These matters were returned to district committees for the filing of formal complaints. last year, 71 diversions were approved (75 requests less 4 rejections). During the last five years, an average of 76.8 diversions was approved. The most common diversion offenses for 2010 were: money-recordkeeping (13); gross neglect/lack of diligence/competence (12); money-negligent misappropriation (9), and fee non-compliance with rules (9). The most popular condition imposed in diversion cases required the attorney to complete the new Jersey State Bar Associations Ethics Diversionary Education Course (72). Other required conditions included improving law office procedures (10); letters of apology (9); continuing legal education (4); and payment of fee refunds/restitution (3). last year, attendance at the Bar Associations Diversionary Course was also the primary remedial condition (63).
42
D.
REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS A suspended attorney may not practice again until the attorney first files a reinstatement application, and the Supreme Court grants the request by order. The application is reviewed by the OAE, the Review Board and the Supreme Court. There is no procedure for a disbarred attorney to apply for reinstatement since disbarment is permanent. In re wilson, 81 n.J. 451, 456 n.5 (1979) and R. 1:20-15A(a)(1). where the attorney is suspended for over six months, a reinstatement petition may not be made until after expiration of the time period provided in the suspension Order. R. 1:20-21(a). where the suspension is for six months or less, the attorney may file a petition and publish the required public notice 40 days prior to the suspension period. R. 1:20-21(b). The Supreme Court reinstated twelve (12) attorneys in 2010, which represents a 25% decrease from 2009 when sixteen (16) attorneys were reinstated.
E.
MONITORED ATTORNEYS The Supreme Court imposes monitoring conditions on some attorneys, either in connection with interim or final sanctions imposed in disciplinary proceedings or as a result of previous reinstatement proceedings. generally, there are several types of practice conditions. A proctorship is imposed on those attorneys who need intensive guidance and oversight by a seasoned practitioner. Rule 1:20-18 imposes specific reporting responsibilities on both the respondent and the proctor, including weekly conferences, the maintenance of time records and instructions regarding proper financial recordkeeping. Another typical condition is the submission of an annual or quarterly audit report covering attorney trust and business records. A further condition is random periodic drug testing at the attorneys expense. Finally, some attorneys are required to take ethics or substantive law courses. As of December 31, 2010, forty-four (44) attorneys were subject to monitoring.
43
vI. DISCIPLINARY STRUCTURE

The attorney disciplinary system consists of three levels: 1) the Office of Attorney Ethics and District Ethics Committees, 2) the Disciplinary Review Board and 3) the Supreme Court of new Jersey. Attorney Disciplinary System
Figure 8
45
A.
DISTRICT ETHICS COMMITTEES The first level consists of 18 regionalized volunteer Ethics Committees, supervised and managed by the OAE. They are generally established along single or multiple county lines. 1. MEMBERS AnD OFFICERS OF DECS Ethics Committees consist of volunteer members who investigate, prosecute and decide disciplinary matters. As of September 1, 2010, there were 592 volunteers (502 attorneys and 90 public members) serving pro bono across the state. Each Ethics Committee consists of three officers: a chair, who is the chief executive officer and the person responsible for all investigations; a vice chair, who is responsible for all cases in the hearing stage; and a secretary (an attorney). The Secretary is not considered a member of the Ethics Committee. Rather, he is the committee administrator. In that capacity, the Secretary receives and screens all inquiries and grievances. The secretary functions as the Ethics Committees link to the public, fielding all calls from members of the public and the Bar and providing information about the grievance and disciplinary process. Although Secretaries, like members, serve on a voluntary basis, they receive an annual emolument to defray the expenses related to their duties as Secretary. 2010-11 District Ethics Committee Officers
CHAIR VICE CHAIR SECRETARY District I - Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties Joseph E. Ruth, Esq. Carmen R. Faia, Esq. Fredric L. Shenkman, Esq. District IIA Bergen - North Kevin P. Kelly, Esq. Joseph A. Maurice, Esq. Doris J. Newman, Esq. Leslie M. Martinelli, Esq. Doris J. Newman, Esq. District IIIA - Ocean County Tricia E. Habert, Esq. Eugenia M. Lynch, Esq. Steven Secare, Esq. District IIIB - Burlington County Christopher R. Stockton, Esq. Leslie M. Martinelli, Esq. Cynthia S. Earl, Esq. District IV - Camden and Gloucester Counties Maryann J. Rabkin, Esq. Jean S. Chetney, Esq. John M. Palm, Esq. District VA - Essex County - Newark Mitchell L. Goldstein, Esq. Stephen V. Falanga, Esq. Seth Ptasiewicz, Esq. District VB - Essex County - Suburban Essex Brian Gerstein, Esq. James J. McDonald, Esq. Seth Ptasiewicz, Esq. District VC - Essex County - West Essex Andrew M. Epstein, Esq. Peter A. Gaudioso, Esq. Seth Ptasiewicz, Esq. District VI - Hudson County Michael L. Dermody, Esq. Jeffrey R. Jablonski, Esq. Jack Jay Wind, Esq. District VII - Mercer County John S. Eory, Esq. Robert Panzer, Esq. Alan G. Frank, Jr., Esq. District VIII - Middlesex County Kim Marie Connor, Esq. Gregg R. Rubenstein, Esq. Manny Gerstein, Esq. District IX - Monmouth County Douglas J. Kovats, Esq. Joseph M. Casello, Esq. Kathleen A. Sheedy, Esq. District XA - East Morris and Sussex Counties Elenora L. Benz, Esq. Robert M. Vinci, Esq. Caroline Record, Esq. District XB West Morris and Sussex Counties Eric S. Solotoff, Esq. Edward A. Sturchio, Jr., Esq. Caroline Office of Attorney Ethics Record, Esq. District XI - Passaic County Vikki Stacy Ziegler, Esq. Bobbi J. Vilacha, Esq. Robert L. Stober, Esq. Christopher J. Koller, Esq.
District IIB - Bergen County - South
46
Gregg R. Rubenstein, Esq. Manny Gerstein, Esq. District IX - Monmouth County Douglas J. Kovats, Esq. Joseph M. Casello, Esq. Kathleen A. Sheedy, Esq. District XA - East Morris and Sussex Counties Elenora L. Benz, Esq. Robert M. Vinci, Esq. Caroline Record, Esq. District XB West Morris and Sussex Counties Eric S. Solotoff, Esq. Edward A. Sturchio, Jr., Esq. Caroline Record, Esq. District XI - Passaic County Vikki Stacy Ziegler, Esq. Bobbi J. Vilacha, Esq. Robert L. Stober, Esq. District XII - Union County Michael F. Brandman, Esq. James J. Byrnes, Esq. William B. Ziff, Esq. District XIII - Hunterdon, Somerset and Warren Counties Victor A. Rotolo, Esq. Tara L. Johnson, Esq. Donna P. Legband, Esq.
Kim Marie Connor, Esq.
Figure 9 2. InvESTIgATIOnS Attorney members are assigned to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute grievances docketed with an Ethics Committee. 3. COMPlAInTS Formal complaints are filed only where the chair determines that there is a reasonable prospect of proving charges against the attorney-respondent by clear and convincing evidence. 4. HEARIng PAnElS Three-member hearing panels comprised of two attorneys and one public member of a district ethics committee decide cases after formal complaints have been filed. 5. OFFICE OF ATTORnEy ETHICS The OAE is responsible for overseeing the operations of all Ethics Committees. The OAE also investigates and prosecutes serious, complex and emergent matters statewide as discussed more fully in the Office of Attorney Ethics section below. B. DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD The second level of the disciplinary system involves the Disciplinary Review Board (Review Board), which is the intermediate appellate tribunal in disciplinary matters. It is composed of nine members: Presently five are lawyers (louis Pashman, Esq., Chair, Bonnie C. Frost, Esq., vice Chair, Edna y. Baugh, Esq., Bruce w. Clark, Esq. and Morris yamner, Esq.), one is a retired Assignment Judge (Hon. Reginald Stanton) and three are public members (Ms. Jeanne Doremus, Mr. Spencer v. wissinger, III and Mr. Robert C. Zmirich). All Review Board members volunteer their time to the system. The Review Board meets monthly (except August and December) in public session in Trenton at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, where oral arguments are held on recommendations for discipline. The Review Boards primary responsibility is to review reports by hearing panels and special ethics masters finding unethical conduct and recommending discipline, and to decide OAE motions for final or reciprocal discipline. If a matter comes to it on a recommendation for admonition, the Review Board may issue a written letter of admonition. Other discipline
47
matters recommending reprimand, censure, suspension or disbarment are routinely scheduled for oral argument. The respondent may appear in person or by counsel. The presenter of an Ethics Committee or OAE ethics counsel appears to prosecute the matter. If the Review Board determines that a reprimand or greater discipline should be imposed, its written decision is reviewed by the Supreme Court, which then issues the final Order imposing discipline. The Review Board also decides other matters, including appeals from dismissals after investigation or hearing. It also acts on requests by suspended attorneys to be reinstated to practice. Here, the Review Boards recommendation goes to the Supreme Court to either grant or deny reinstatement. OAE ethics counsel appeared before the Review Board during 2010 and argued a total of 57 separate matters. The Review Boards review is de novo on the existing record and no testimony is taken. Arguments are public. C. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY The Supreme Court of new Jersey is the third and highest level of the disciplinary system. Under the State Constitution, the Supreme Court of new Jersey has exclusive authority over the regulation of the practice of law. n.J. Const. art. vI, Section II, P3. The Supreme Court sets the terms for admission to the practice of law and regulates the professional conduct of attorneys. The Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State Senate for an initial term of seven years. On reappointment, they are granted tenure until they reach the mandatory judicial retirement age of 70. The current Chief Justice is Stuart Rabner, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2007. The other members of the Supreme Court are Associate Justice virginia A. long (appointed in 1999; tenured in 2006); Associate Justice Jaynee lavecchia (appointed in 2000; tenured in 2007); Associate Justice Barry T. Albin (appointed in 2002; tenured in 2010); Associate Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto (appointed in 2004); and Associate Justice Helen E. Hoens (appointed in 2006). (Figure 10)
48
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Justice long
Chief Justice Rabner
Justice lavecchia
Justice Albin
Justice Rivera-Soto
Justice Hoens
Figure 10
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in disciplinary matters at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton. Only the Supreme Court can order disbarment of an attorney. In all other matters, the decision of the Review Board becomes final on the entry of a confirmatory order by the Supreme Court, unless it grants a petition for review or issues an order to show cause on its own motion. The OAE represents the public interest in all cases before the Supreme Court. During 2010, OAE ethics counsel appeared a total of 34 times for oral argument in disciplinary cases. Arguments are televised in real time via streaming video technology over the Internet. This innovative use of technology, called wEBCAST, includes attorney disciplinary arguments. Arguments can be accessed from the Judiciarys website at www.njcourtsonline.com by clicking on the wEBCAST icon. D. NEW JERSEY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION The new Jersey State Bar Association (nJSBA) is not directly involved in the administration of the attorney disciplinary system. However, the nJSBA has always supported the Supreme Court in its efforts to strengthen the disciplinary system. This support includes, but is not limited to, assisting the OAE in identifying attorneys of the highest ethical standards to serve as volunteers on the DECs and developing and administering the nJSBA Ethics Diversionary Education Course to assist attorneys who have engaged in minor unethical conduct in becoming better attorneys. The nJSBA also designates one representative to serve on the Disciplinary Oversight Committee (discussed below), which is charged with the responsibility to oversee the entire disciplinary system.
49
E.
FINANCING ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE 1. AnnUAl ATTORnEy REgISTRATIOn FEE The attorney disciplinary system in new Jersey is funded exclusively from the Supreme Courts annual mandatory registration assessment on lawyers. no taxpayers monies are used. The assessment constitutes dedicated funds earmarked exclusively for the attorney discipline and fee arbitration systems. R.1:20-2(b). The annual billing also funds the lawyers Fund for Client Protection, R. 1:28-2 (which reimburses clients whose monies have been taken by lawyers through dishonest conduct), as well as the lawyers Assistance Program (which helps lawyers with alcohol, substance abuse and other problems). For calendar year 2010, the total annual fee assessed for most lawyers (those admitted between 5 to 49 years), was $204. Of this amount, $140 was earmarked for attorney discipline, $50 for the lawyers Fund, $10 for lawyers Assistance, and $4 for Continuing legal Education. 2. COMPARISOn TO OTHER JURISDICTIOnS new Jersey attorneys pay among the lowest mandatory annual registration fees in the country. A July 1, 2010, survey prepared by the OAE for the national Organization of Bar Counsel, Inc., showed that new Jersey ranked 8th in attorney size (with 85,690 attorneys) out of 51 United States jurisdictions. The survey also demonstrated that the garden State ranked 42nd (at $204) in the amount of mandatory fees required to practice. For 2009, new Jersey ranked 7th in size and 44th in mandatory annual fees charged. 3. DISCIPlInARy OvERSIgHT COMMITTEE The Supreme Court has established a Disciplinary Oversight Committee (Oversight Committee) and charged it with the responsibility to oversee the administration and financial management of the disciplinary system. R. 1:20B. One of its primary functions is to review annually the budgets proposed by the OAE and the Review Board and to make recommendations to the Supreme Court in that respect. The Oversight Committee for 2010 consisted of six attorneys (Michael K. Furey, Esq., Chair, Paris P. Eliades, Esq., Daniel R. guadalupe, Esq., Maureen E. Kerns, Esq., Hon. Joel Rosen, Esq., and Debra Stone, Esq.) and five public members (Mr. Anthony J. guacci, vice Chair, Mr. Alonzo Brandon, Jr., Mr. Alfred w. Clark, Mr. Raymond Ocasio, and Mr. Richard Sackin), all of whom serve pro bono. The annual disciplinary budget for calendar year 2010 was $11,150,284. Sixty percent was allocated to the OAE and 19% to the Review Board. The balance was apportioned as follows: District Ethics Committees (7%), Random Audit Program (6%), Attorney Registration Program (4%), District Fee Arbitration Committees (3%) and Oversight Committee (1%).
F.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS The Supreme Court created the OAE on October 19, 1983, as the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Supreme Court in discharging its constitutional authority to supervise and discipline new Jersey attorneys. n.J. Const. art vI, Section II, P3.
50
The OAE has programmatic responsibility for 18 Ethics Committees, which investigate and prosecute grievances alleging unethical conduct against attorneys. It also administers 17 District Fee Arbitration Committees (Fee Committees), which hear and determine disputes over legal fees between attorneys and clients. likewise, the OAE conducts the Random Audit Program (RAP), which undertakes random audits of private law firm trust and business accounts to ensure that mandatory trust record keeping practices are followed. The OAE also oversees the collection and analysis of Annual Attorney Registration Statement data, which provides demographic and private practice information about all new Jersey lawyers, including trust and business accounts. Importantly, the OAE also is vested with exclusive investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction in certain types of matters, such as emergent, complex or serious disciplinary cases, matters where an attorney has been criminally charged, cases where an attorney is the subject of reciprocal discipline from another United States jurisdiction, matters involving allegations against a sitting Superior Court or Appellate Division judge concerning conduct while the judge was an attorney, multijurisdictional practice matters, charges against in-house counsel, cases where Ethics Committees have not resolved an investigation within a year, and any case referred by the Review Board or the Supreme Court. R. 1:20-2(b). 1. OAE lEgAl gROUP The Supreme Court appoints the OAE Director. On recommendation of the Director, the Supreme Court appoints other ethics counsel. The Director hires all other staff, subject to the approval of the Chief Justice. The OAE legal group consists of a Director, First Assistant, three Assistant Ethics Counsel, and eight Deputy Ethics Counsel.
OAE Legal Group
From left to right: Assistant Ethics Counsel walton w. Kingsbery, III, Deputy Ethics Counsel Janice l. Richter, Deputy Ethics Counsel Melissa A. Czartoryski, First Assistant Ethics Counsel Michael J. Sweeney, Assistant Ethics Counsel Paula T. granuzzo, Director Charles Centinaro, Deputy Ethics Counsel Maureen g. Bauman, Deputy Ethics Counsel Christina Blunda Kennedy, Deputy Ethics Counsel lee A. gronikowski, Deputy Ethics Counsel nitza I. Blasini. not Shown: Deputy Ethics Counsel HoeChin Kim.
Figure 11
51
2. ADMInISTRATIvE gROUP The work of the OAE is ably supported by itsAdministrative group (Figure 12). It includes the OAE Administrator, who is responsible for human resources, facilities management, budgeting and accounting services, attorney registration program, reception and public information. She is assisted by a Support Staff Supervisor and an Office Coordinator. Information technology consists of a manager and a network administrator.
OAE Administrative Group
From left to right: Information Systems Manager Mark S. wagner, Support Staff Supervisor Rhonda l. Hardinger, network Administrator Jeffrey w. Renson. not Shown: OAE Administrator Susan E. Fleming and Officer Coordinator Sharon vandegrift.
Figure 12
3.
SUPPORT gROUP
The OAEs Support group for discipline (Figure 13) consists of a legal assistant, secretaries, and clerical positions. These positions support attorneys, investigators, auditors and administrative personnel. In addition to secretarial/ OAE Support Group support services, a number of these staff positions provide information to the public, attorneys and others; issue Certificates of Ethical Conduct; transcribe interviews and demand audits; computerize and update information on all disciplinary cases docketed statewide; enter the results of decisions by the Supreme Court and the Review Board From left to right: Fee Arbitration Assistant lavette D. Mims, Secretary Amy l. into OAE systems; enter Mascia, Mercedes R. Schneider, lydia Burrus, lennette goodman, Secretary Barbara A. Cristofaro, Office Coordinator Sharon D. vandegrift, Secretary Karen attorney registration data; Hagen-Boda, Barbara west-Schofield, and Rosalind J. Roberts. not Shown: Marian handle the Trust Overdraft B. Besecker, Danette Brown, Anderia l. Calhoun, glenda D. Jones, gail S. gross, Program and the approved Emma Tomlinson, and glenn McCollum. trust depositories program; coordinate the use of special Figure 13 ethics masters; administer OAE pool vehicles; and perform bookkeeping functions, together with many other important tasks without which the statewide disciplinary system could not operate.
52
4. COMPlEx InvESTIgATIvE gROUP The OAEs Complex Investigative group (Figure 14) consists of forensic disciplinary auditors and disciplinary investigators, assisted by an investigative aide. william M. Ruskowski is the Chief of Investigations. He was assisted by Assistant Chief Jeanine E. verdel and Assistant Chief Barbara galati. OAE Complex Investigative Group
From left to right: Auditor Arthur l. garibaldi, Investigator wanda l. Riddle, Chief of Investigations william M. Ruskowski, Auditor gary Stroz, Auditor Raymond R. Kaminski, Investigator gregory Kulinich, Investigator g. nicholas Hall, Auditor Bruce A. Bethka, Auditor Steven J. Harasym, Assistant Chief Investigator Barbara galati, Investigator M. Scott Fitz-Patrick, and Auditor Joseph Strieffler. Figure 14
The Complex Investigative group primarily conducts statewide investigations of complex, serious and emergent matters, reciprocal discipline, and criminal and civil charges made against new Jersey lawyers. Cases often involve misappropriation of trust funds, unethical financial and fraudulent conduct, recidivist attorneys, and related white-collar misconduct. The group also handles matters where the OAE seeks temporary suspensions of attorneys to protect the public and the Bar. 5. DISTRICT ETHICS gROUP The OAE District Ethics group (OAEs DEC group) (Figure 15) supports the efforts of the 18 volunteer Ethics Committees throughout the state. Assistant Ethics Counsel Paula T. granuzzo, who serves as the OAEs Statewide Ethics Coordinator, spearheads this group. She is assisted by Deputy Ethics Counsel Maureen g. Bauman. Both are supported by an administrative assistant and a part-time secretary. OAE District Group
From left to right: Assistant Statewide Ethics Coordinator Maureen g. Bauman, Administrative Assistant Caroline Allen, Secretary Sharon Allen, and Statewide Ethics Coordinator Paula T. granuzzo. Figure 15
53
The responsibilities of the OAEs DEC group are broad and include: recruitment of all volunteer members, including screening, appointment and replacement as necessary; conducting annual orientation training and conducting annual meetings of all officers; preparing the District Ethics Committee Manual; providing monthly computer listings of all pending cases to officers; and handling statewide general correspondence, including complaints about processing from grievants and respondents. The group also assesses conflicts arising at the district level and transfers cases as necessary; continuously communicates with officers regarding committees compliance with Supreme Court time goals; compiles and reviews monthly and quarterly exception reports from officers; periodically follows-up with volunteer investigators and hearing panel chairs, as necessary, and provides legal and procedural advice to the DEC volunteer members. The group also prepares a quarterly DEC newsletter to educate members; issues Certificates of Appreciation to outgoing members; drafts press releases for incoming and outgoing members; recommends policies necessary to secure goals set by the Supreme Court; and consults with the Director, OAE on an ongoing basis.
54
vII. ATTORNEY FEE ARBITRATION

A. HISTORY AND PURPOSE The new Jersey Supreme Court has long recognized that disputes between clients and their attorneys are not always matters of ethics, but sometimes matters of client satisfaction. Disagreements over lawyers fees not amounting to overreaching fall into this category. To assist in the resolution of these disagreements, the Supreme Court established a fee arbitration program, which utilizes more than 280 volunteers serving on 17 District Fee Arbitration Committees (Fee Committees) to screen and adjudicate fee disputes between clients and lawyers over the reasonableness of a lawyers fee. new Jerseys fee system requires that the lawyer notify the client of the fee arbitration programs availability prior to bringing a lawsuit for the collection of fees. If the client chooses fee arbitration, the lawyer must arbitrate the matter. This program began in 1978 and was just the second mandatory statewide program in the country, behind Alaska. Such programs offer clients and attorneys an inexpensive, fast and confidential method of resolving fee disagreements. Even today, new Jersey remains one of only a handful of states with a mandatory statewide fee arbitration program. Other such programs exist in Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Maine, new york, Montana, north Carolina, South Carolina and wyoming. B. ADMINISTRATION The OAE administers the district fee arbitration system. Assistant Ethics Counsel John Mcgill, III, Esq. is the OAEs Statewide Fee Coordinator. He is supported by an administrative assistant and a part-time data entry clerk. Figure 16. The OAEs Fee Arbitration group also handles all appointments for 17 District Fee Arbitration Committees and provides administrative advice to committee members. As of September 1, 2010, there were 281 members of district committees (187 attorneys and 94 public members) serving pro bono across the state. C. STRUCTURE The fee arbitration process is a two-tiered system. Fee arbitration is conducted on two levels: 17 District Fee Arbitration Committees (Figure 17) and the statewide Review Board. 1. FIlIng FOR FEE ARBITRATIOn The process begins when a client files an arbitration request with the secretary of the Fee Committee in a district where the lawyer maintains an office. Both the client and attorney are required to pay a $50 administrative filing fee for using the system. After the secretary dockets the case, an Attorney Fee Response Form is sent to the attorney. It requests a copy of the bill, any written fee agreement and any time records. The attorney must serve a copy of the response on the client and pay the $50 administrative filing fee to the secretary within 20 days after the attorneys receipt of the clients initial request for arbitration. within that same period, the attorney may join, as a third party, any other attorney or law firm that the original attorney claims is liable for all or a part of the clients claim. Rule 1:20A-3(b) (2). Thereafter, the matter can be set down for a hearing.
55
OAE Fee Arbitration Group
From left to right: Secretary Danette Brown, Statewide Fee Arbitration Coordinator John Mcgill, III, Esq. and Fee Arbitration Assistant lavette D. Mims not shown: Mary Zienowicz. Figure 16
2. ARBITRATIOn HEARIngS In cases involving fees of $3,000 or more, the matter is heard before panels of three members, usually composed of two lawyers and one public member. Fee Committees have been composed of both lawyers and public members since April 1, 1979. If the total amount of the fee charged is less than $3,000, the hearing may be held before a single attorney member of the Fee Committee. Hearings are scheduled on at least ten days written notice. There is no discovery. However, all parties have the power of subpoena, subject to rules of relevancy and materiality. no stenographic or other transcript of the proceedings is maintained. The burden of proof in fee matters is on the attorney to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the fee charged is reasonable. Following the hearing, the panel or single arbitrator prepares a written arbitration determination, with a brief statement of reasons annexed, usually within thirty days. The secretary mails the decision to the parties. 3. APPEAlS A limited right of appeal to the Review Board is provided under R. 1:20A-3(c). The limited grounds for appeal are: 1) failure of a member to be disqualified in accordance with R. 1:12-1; 2) substantial failure of the Fee Committee to comply with procedural requirements of the rule or other substantial procedural unfairness that led to an unjust result; 3) actual fraud on the part of any member of the Fee Committee; and 4) palpable mistake of law by the Fee Committee which led to an unjust result. Either the attorney or the client may take an appeal within 21 days after receipt of the Fee Committees written determination by filing a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by the Review Board. All appeals are reviewed by the Review Board on the record. Its decision is final.
56
2010-11 District Fee Committee Officers

CHAIR VICE CHAIR SECRETARY
District I - Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties Stephen D. Barse, Esq. Richard F. DeLucry, Esq. Michael A. Pirolli, Esq. District IIA Bergen - North Jeffrey L. Clutterbuck, Esq. Kevin P. Harkins, Esq. Terrence J. Corriston, Esq. District IIB - Bergen County - South Linda Spiegel, Esq. Laura L. Van Tassel, Esq. Michael J. Sprague, Esq. District IIIA - Ocean County Claire Marie Calinda, Esq. Stacie A. Brustman, Esq. Lisa E. Halpern, Esq. District IIIB - Burlington County John J. Coughlin, IV, Esq. Patricia M. Ronayne, Esq. Albert M. Afonso, Esq. District IV - Camden and Gloucester Counties Nicole M. Acchione, Esq. Nicole T. Donoian, Esq. Daniel McCormack, Esq. District VA - Essex County - Newark John C. Phillips, Esq. Elizabeth Ann Kenny, Esq. Shaun S. McGregor, Esq. District VB - Essex County - Suburban Essex Jodi Lynn Rosenberg, Esq. Harvey S. Grossman, Esq. David Schechner, Esq. District VC - Essex County - West Essex Stephen H. Knee, Esq. Patrick P. Toscano, Jr., Esq. Anne K. Franges, Esq. District VI - Hudson County Gregory J. Castano, Esq. Anthony J. DeSalvo, Esq. Marvin R. Walden, Jr., Esq. District VII - Mercer County Sherri A. Affrunti, Esq. Paul M. Donini, Esq. Patricia M. Graham, Esq. District VIII - Middlesex County Robert J. Devlin, Esq. Stacey Z. Rodkin, Esq. William P. Isele, Esq. District IX - Monmouth County Gregory S. Baxter, Esq. Charles R. Parker, Esq. Robert J. Saxton, Esq. District X - Morris and Sussex Counties Patrick B. Minter, Esq. George D. Schonwald, Esq. Melinda D. Middlebrooks, Esq. District XI - Passaic County Carmen Elsa Cortes, Esq. Christopher A. Erd, Esq. Jane E. Salomon, Esq. District XII - Union County Robert G. Hicks, Esq. Jocelyn Chisolm Carter, Esq. Carol A. Jeney, Esq. District XIII - Hunterdon, Somerset and Warren Counties Thomas F. Chansky, Esq. Heidi Ann Lepp, Esq. John P. McDonald, Esq.
Figure 17
There is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court. D. ANNUAL CASELOAD In 2010, Fee Committees handled a total of 1689 matters. They began the year with 565 cases pending from 2009. During the year, 1,124 new matters were added. Figure 18. A total of 1,085 cases were disposed of, leaving a balance of 604 matters pending at years end. At the conclusion of 2010, the average number of cases pending before each of the 17 Fee Committees was 35.5 cases per district. The 1,124 new filings received in 2010 represents only 1.6% of the active new Jersey lawyer population (69,905). with hundreds of thousands of legal matters filed with the courts,
57
and the hundreds of thousands of non-litigated matters (real estate, wills, business transactions and government agency matters, etc.) handled annually, the number of fee arbitration filings is a very small percentage of the total attorney-client transactions. 1. FInAnCIAl RESUlTS District Fee Committees arbitrated or settled matters involving a total of close to $12.7 million in legal fees this year, which represents a decrease of 13% from the $14.5 million in legal fees handled during 2009. Fee Committees conducted 692 hearings this year involving $11.8 million in total attorneys fees charged. In 36.7% of the cases (254 hearings), they upheld the attorneys fees in full. In the balance of 60.7% of the fee cases (420 hearings), they reduced fees by a total of $1.89 million, which represents 29.1% of the total billings subject to reduction. The amount of reductions in arbitrated cases was analyzed in ranges of from less than $100 up to $20,001 to $50,000. In almost 54% of the hearings resulting in a reduction, the dollar amount of the reduction was between $251 and $3,000. An additional 18% were in the range between $5,001 and $20,000. The average bill in all cases formally determined was $17,076, while the average reduction in these matters was $4,497. Since the parties are not required to provide specific details in matters that are settled before hearing, available information is incomplete. 2. AgE OF CASElOAD Slightly more than two-thirds (68.7%) of all fee disputes disposed of (747 of 1,088) in 2010 had an average age of less than 180 days. This represents a .8% improvement over 2009 when 67.9% of pending matters were disposed of within that 6-month time frame. The percentage of cases taking more than one year to complete was reduced by .8%, from 11.9% in 2009 to 11.1% in 2010. Cases in the mid-range - from 6 to 12 months of age accounted for approximately one in five disposed matters at 20.2%, the same as in 2009. E. NATURE OF CASES The type of legal matters handled is a primary factor in determining which cases utilized fee arbitration. Over the past five years, family actions (including matrimonial, support and custody cases) have consistently generated the most fee disputes (37.3%) on average. Criminal matters (including indictable, quasi-criminal and municipal court cases) ranked second in frequency (14.2%). Third place was filled by general litigation at 11.9%. Real Estate matters at 6.8% came in fourth place. Fifth place went to Contract matters with 4.8%. All other practice types accounted for 24.9% of fee dispute filings (including such areas as Estates, Bankruptcy and negligence matters). Changes in Fee Disputes
Year Filings Change Overall 2.0% 2010 1,124 -.8% 2009 1,102 10.8% 13.9% 2008 1,091 1.6% 2007 1,003 987 --2006
Figure 18
58
vIII. RANDOM AUDIT PROGRAM

A. PURPOSE 1. SAFEgUARDIng PUBlIC COnFIDEnCE The Supreme Court of new Jersey has been a leader nationally in protecting the public by actively auditing attorney trust accounts for compliance with mandatory fiduciary rules. new Jerseys Random Audit Compliance Program (RAP) has been conducting financial audits of law firms since July 1981. All private law firms are required to maintain trust and business accounts and are subject to random audit reviews. On average, at any given time, clients allow new Jersey lawyers to hold almost $3 billion dollars in primary attorney trust accounts (IOlTA trust accounts) alone. Even more dollars are controlled by garden State law firms in separate attorney trust and other fiduciary accounts in connection with estates, guardianships, receiverships, trusteeships and other fiduciary capacities. Both public protection and the publics trust in lawyers require a high degree of accountability. Over twenty-nine years after RAP first began, the conclusion is that the overwhelming majority of private new Jersey law firms (98.6%) account for clients funds honestly and without incident. while technical accounting deficiencies are found and corrected, the fact is that only 1.4% of the audits conducted over that period have found serious ethical violations, such as misappropriation of clients trust funds. Since law firms are selected randomly for audit on a statewide basis, the selections and, therefore, the results are representative of the handling of trust monies by private practice firms. These results should give the public and the Bar great trust and confidence in the honesty of lawyers and their ability to handle monies entrusted to their care faithfully. new Jersey is the state with the largest lawyer population in the country to conduct a random auditing program. Only eight (8) other states have operational random programs. In order of implementation, they are: Iowa (1973), Delaware (1974), washington (1977), new Hampshire, (1980), north Carolina (1984), vermont (1990), Kansas (2000) and Connecticut (2007). 2. AUDITIng OBJECTIvES The central objectives of the Random Audit Program are to insure compliance with the Supreme Courts stringent financial recordkeeping rules and to educate law firms on the proper method of fulfilling their fiduciary obligations to clients under Rule 1:21-6. Another reason underlying the program is a by-product of the first deterrence. Just knowing there is an active auditing program is an incentive not only to keep accurate records but, also to avoid temptations to misuse trust funds. while not quantifiable, the deterrent effect on those few lawyers who might be tempted otherwise to abuse their clients trust is undeniably present. Random audits serve
The audit occurred at a time of both personal loss and illness. As such, the process has been daunting. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to (your auditor) for her patience and assistant throughout. I have no background in accounting but believe that all attorneys maintaining trust accounts would greatly benefit from an accounting tutorial. I think (your auditor) is just the person to teach that class. An ESSEx COUnTy SOlE PRACTITIOnER
59
to detect misappropriation in those relatively small number of law firms where it occurs. Since the random selection process results, by definition, in selecting a representative cross-section of the new Jersey Bar, a few audits inevitably uncover lawyer theft and other serious unethical conduct, even though this is not the primary purpose of the program. B. ADMINISTRATION The OAE administers RAP. The staff is managed by Chief Auditor Robert J. Prihoda, Esq., C.P.A., who joined the OAE in 1981. Other staff include Assistant Chief Auditor Mary E. waldman, who is a Certified Fraud Examiner; two Senior Random Auditors: Mimi lakind, Esq. and Karen J. Hagerman, a Certified Fraud Examiner; and Random Auditor: Joseph J. Strieffler, Jr. (Figure 19) Random Audit Group
From left to right: Senior Auditor Karen J. Hagerman, Random Auditor Joseph R. Strieffler, Jr., Senior Auditor Mimi lakind, Chief Auditor Robert J. Prihoda, Assistant Chief Auditor Mary E. waldman. not Shown: Secretary Amy Mascia. Figure 19
C.
RANDOMNESS AND SELECTION A primary key to the integrity of RAP lies in the assurance that no law firm is chosen for audit except by random selection using a computer program based on a Microsoft Corporation algorithm for randomness. The identifier used for the law firm in the selection process is the main law office telephone number. The Supreme Court approved this methodology in 1991 as the fairest and most unbiased selection process possible, because it insures that each law firm, regardless of size, has an equal chance of being selected.
D.
STANDARDS FOR ACCOUNTING The new Jersey Recordkeeping Rule 1:21-6 has provided attorneys with detailed guidance on handling trust and business accounts for more than 42 years. It is the uniform accounting standard for all audits. This rule, which incorporates generally accepted accounting principles, also specifies in detail the types of accounting records that must be maintained and their location.
60
It also requires monthly reconciliations, prohibits overdraft protection and the use of ATMs for trust accounts and requires a seven-year records retention schedule. All private law firms are required to maintain a trust account for all clients funds entrusted to their care and a separate business account into which all funds received for professional services must be deposited. Trust accounts must be located in new Jersey. These accounts must be uniformly designated Attorney Trust Account. Business accounts are required to be designated as either an Attorney Business Account, Attorney Professional Account, or Attorney Office Account. All required books and records must be made available for inspection by random audit personnel. The confidentiality of all audited records is maintained at all times. E. AUDITING PROCEDURES 1. SCHEDUlIng Random audits are always scheduled in writing ten days to two weeks in advance. while the audit scheduled date is firm, requests for adjournments are given close attention. 2. RECORD ExAMInATIOn The auditor conducts an initial interview with the managing attorney followed by the examination and testing of the law firms financial recordkeeping system. At the conclusion of the audit, which averages one full day, the auditor offers to confer with the managing attorney in an exit conference to review and explain the findings. At that time, the attorney is given a deficiency checklist, which highlights corrective action that must be taken. Even in the case where no corrections are necessary to bring the firm into compliance with the rule, the auditor may suggest improvements that will make the firms job of monitoring client funds easier. 3. nOTICE OF DEFICIEnCy The deficiency checklist is followed by a letter confirming the exit conference and describing any shortcomings for which corrective action is necessary. A certification of corrections must be filed with RAP within 45 days of the date of the letter, specifying how each deficiency has, in fact, been rectified. If the confirming letter is received from the attorney, the case is closed administratively. If the letter is not received, a final ten-day letter advises that, if no confirming letter is received within ten days, a disciplinary complaint will be issued. when a complaint is filed, discipline is the uniform result. In re Schlem, 165 n.J. 536 (2000). F. COMPLIANCE THROUGH EDUCATION All lawyers receive an annual attorney registration statement requiring private practitioners to list their primary trust and business accounts and to certify compliance with the recordkeeping
I wish to thank the Office of Attorney Ethics and, in particular, the Audit Compliance Officer . . . who was most professional and helpful in identifying and explaining non-compliance issues. An OCEAn COUnTy lAw FIRM
61
requirements of Rule 1:21-6, a reproduction of which is included with the mailing. The Random Audit Program also publishes a brochure entitled new Jersey Attorneys guide to the Random Audit Program. Since 1996, that brochure is sent to all law firms with the initial random scheduling letter. Detailed information on the program is also available on the OAEs website. G. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS Each year RAPs staff of experienced auditors uncovers a small, but significant, number of cases of lawyer theft and other serious financial violations. This past year, the following eight (8) attorneys detected solely by RAP were finally disciplined by the Supreme Court (Figure 20).
2010 RAP Sanctions

Attorney
Clemens, Charles W. Filauro, Robert L. Fox, James Andrew Kosberg, Alison Ellen Mac Duffie, Jr., Edward A. Miele III, John A. Saunders, Richard P. Swidler, Arthur E.
County
Somerset Atlantic Essex Middlesex Ocean Monmouth Morris Mercer
Sanction
Reprimand Disbarment Reprimand Reprimand Reprimand Disbarment By Consent Censure Suspension
Figure 20
Citation
202 N.J. 139 202 N.J. 9 202 N.J. 136 202 N.J. 141 202 N.J. 138 203 N.J. 535 202 N.J. 11 202 N.J. 334
Negligent Misappropriation Knowing Misappropriation Negligent Misappropriation Negligent Misappropriation Negligent Misappropriation Knowing Misappropriation Negligent Misappropriation Negligent Misappropriation
Violation
During the twenty-nine years of RAPs operation, serious financial misconduct by 152 attorneys was detected solely as a result of being randomly selected for audit. These attorneys received the following discipline: 73 attorneys were disbarred; 16 were suspended for periods of three months to two years; 4 were censured; 44 were reprimanded; and 15 received admonitions. The vast majority of the matters detected were very serious disciplinary cases that resulted in disbarment or suspension. Disbarred (73) and suspended (16) attorneys account for almost six in ten of all disciplined attorneys (59%). However, discipline alone does not adequately emphasize the full importance of RAPs role over the past 29 years and the monies saved as a result by the lawyers Fund for Client Protection (Fund). One need only contemplate how many more millions of dollars would have continued to be misappropriated during this period if RAP had not detected and disciplined these attorneys when it did. Moreover, deterrence is acknowledged to be a factor in all true random programs (e.g., bank examiners audits, DwI checkpoints, etc.). while it is not easy to quantify either the number of attorneys who were deterred or the tens of millions of dollars in thefts that were prevented due to a credible and effective random program, the positive effect is, nevertheless, an important and undeniable component of this effort.
62
IX. ATTORNEY REGISTRATION

A. ATTORNEY POPULATION As of the end of December 2010, there were a total of 87,639 attorneys admitted to practice in the garden State according to figures from the lawyers Fund for Client Protection (Figure 21). Historically, new Jersey has been among the faster growing lawyer populations in the country. This may be attributable to its location in the populous northeast business triangle between new york, Philadelphia and washington, D.C. The total number of lawyers added to the bar population increased by 2.27% in 2010. with a general population of 8,732,811, there is now one lawyer for every 100 garden State citizens. According to a July 1, 2010 survey compiled by the OAE for the national Organization of Bar Counsel, Inc., a total of 1,829,323 lawyers were admitted to practice in the United States. new Jersey ranked 8th out of 51 jurisdictions in the total number of lawyers admitted, or 4.68% of the July national total. Attorneys Admitted
90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000
1948 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010
Figure 21
B.
ADMISSIONS As of January 3, 2011, the attorney registration database counted a total of 88,0941 new Jersey-admitted attorneys. Sixty-one (61%) were admitted since 1991 and 29% were admitted between 1976-1990. The other 10% were admitted in 1975 or earlier. Breakdowns by periods are: 1950 and earlier - 305 (0.3%); 1951-1960 - 1,043 (1.2%); 1961-1970 - 3,167 (3.6%); 1971-1980 - 9,586 - (10.9%); 1981-1990 - 20,254 - (23%); 19912000 26,079 (29.6%); and 2001-2010 27,660 (31.4%).
This figure does not equal the total attorney population as calculated by the lawyers Fund for Client Protection because the lawyers Fund total does not include those attorneys who were suspended or placed on disability-inactive status after the attorney registration statements were received and tabulated.
1
63
YEAR ADMITTED Year Admitted 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1975 < 1976-90
Figure 22
61%
29%
10%
1991-2010
C.
ATTORNEY AGE Of the 88,094 attorneys for whom some registration information was available, 86,262 (97.9%) provided their date of birth. A total of 1,832 attorneys (2.1%) did not respond to this question. Attorneys in the 40-49 age range comprised the largest group of attorneys admitted to practice in new Jersey at more than twenty-eight percent (28.3% or 24,411). The 30-39 year category comprised 24.4% or 21,036 lawyers. More than twenty-one percent (21.7% or 18,746) were between the ages of 50-59. The fewest numbers of attorneys were in the following age groupings: 29 and under (8.1% or 7,001), 60-69 (12.4% or 10,715) and 70 and older (5.1% or 4,353).
ATTORNEY AGE Attorney Age 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 29< 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70>
Figure 23
64
D.
OTHER ADMISSIONS Seventy-one percent (70.98%) of the 88,094 attorneys for whom some registration information was available were admitted to other jurisdictions. Twenty-nine percent (29.02%) of all attorneys were admitted only in new Jersey. Other Admissions Admissions Only In New Jersey Additional Jurisdictions Totals Figure xx Attorneys 25,565 62,529 88,094 Percent 29.02% 70.98% 100.00%
Figure 24
This figure does not equal the total attorney population as calculated by the lawyers Fund for Client Protection because the lawyers Fund subtracts those attorneys who pass away, were disbarred or suspended, resigned or had their licenses revoked, or placed on disability-inactive status after the attorney
Admissions in Other Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction New York Pennsylvania Dist. of Col. Florida California Connecticut Massachusetts Maryland Virginia Illinois Delaware Texas Georgia Colorado Ohio North Carolina Michigan Arizona Minnesota Missouri Washington Wisconsin Tennessee Maine Louisiana Indiana New Hampshire Admissions 35,205 21,942 6,287 2,992 1,608 1,382 1,355 1,122 660 594 591 487 453 407 384 284 253 231 158 146 136 129 120 119 117 103 99 Percent 43.91% 27.36% 7.84% 3.73% 2.01% 1.72% 1.70% 1.40% 0.82% 0.74% 0.74% 0.61% 0.56% 0.51% 0.48% 0.35% 0.32% 0.30% 0.20% 0.18% 0.17% 0.16% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% 0.13% 0.12% Jurisdiction Nevada Vermont West Virginia South Carolina Hawaii Kentucky Oregon Rhode Island New Mexico Virgin Islands Alabama Iowa Kansas Oklahoma Puerto Rico Arkansas Utah Mississippi Alaska Montana Idaho North Dakota South Dakota Guam Nebraska Wyoming Invalid Responses Total Admissions
Figure 25
Office of Attorney Ethics Figure xx
Admissions 97 84 82 75 72 70 69 68 62 50 49 39 38 38 31 25 25 24 20 20 15 11 9 3 0 0 1,744 80,184
Percent 0.12% 0.10% 0.10% 0.09% 0.09% 0.09% 0.09% 0.08% 0.08% 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.17% 100.00%
65
E.
PRIVATE PRACTICE Of the 88,094 attorneys on whom registration information was tabulated, 35,867 stated that they engaged in the private practice of new Jersey law, either from offices within new Jersey or at locations elsewhere. For a detailed breakdown of the locations of offices (primarily, new Jersey, Pennsylvania, new york and Delaware), see Figure 26. Forty-one percent (40.7%) of the attorneys engaged in the private practice of new Jersey law, while fifty-nine percent (59.3%) did not practice in the private sector. Of those who engaged in the private practice of new Jersey law, sixty percent (60%) practiced full-time, twenty percent (20%) rendered legal advice part-time and fifteen percent (15%) engaged in practice occasionally (defined as less than 5% of their time). Five percent (5%) of responses were unspecified. Private Practices of New Jersey Law Response NO YES Number 52,227 35,867 Percent 59.29% 40.71%
Total Figure xx
Full-time Part-time Occasionally Unspecified
21,511 7,300 5,395 1,661
88,094
100%
Figure 26
Attorneys Privately Practicing New Jersey Law
66
1. PRIvATE PRACTICE FIRM STRUCTURE Of the 35,867 attorneys who indicated they were engaged in the private practice of new Jersey law, 94.9% (34,064) provided information on the structure of their practice. Over one-third (33.5%) of the responding attorneys practiced in sole proprietorships (sole practitioners (10,444) Structure group was associates at 28.7% (9,771), followed plus sole stockholders (979)). The next largest Chart by partners at 26.7% (9,084), other than sole stockholders with 5.1% (1,731), and attorneys who were of counsel with 6% (2,055). Private Firm Structure
In New Jersey
Private Firm Structure

Of Counsel Partner Associate Other Stockholders Sole Stockholder Sole Practitioner 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Figure 27
2. PRIvATE PRACTICE FIRM SIZE Close to ninety-eight percent (97.7%, or 35,072) of those attorneys who identified themselves as being engaged in the private practice of law indicated the size of the law firm of which they were a part. Almost one-third (32.4%, or 11,373) said they practiced alone; 9.9% (3,454) worked in two-person law firms; 14.8% (5,189) belonged to law firms of 3-5 attorneys; 26.2% (9,193) were members of law firms with 6-49 attorneys and 16.7% (5,863) worked in firms with 50 or more attorneys. Private Firm Size
50 > 20 to 49 11 to 19 6 to 10 3 to 5 Two One 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Private Firm Size
Figure 28
67
3. PRIvATE PRACTICE lAw FIRM nUMBER no exact figures exist on the number of law firms that engage in the private practice of new Jersey law. nevertheless, a reasonably accurate estimate can be made based on the 35,867 attorneys who indicated they engaged in the private practice of new Jersey law. A total of 35,072 (97.7%) indicated the size of their law firm. In each firm size category that was non-exclusive (i.e., other than 1 or 2), the total number of attorneys responding was divided by the mid-point in that category. For firms in excess of 50 attorneys, the total number of attorneys responding was divided by 50. Almost three-quarters of all law firms (74.8%) were solo practice firms, while just 5.3% had 6 or more attorneys. Number of Firms Size Of Firms One Two 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 19 20 to 49 50 > Totals Number Of Attorneys 11,373 3,454 5,189 3,436 2,467 3,290 5,863 35,072 Firm Size Midpoint 1 2 4 8 15 35 50
Figure 29
Number Category Of Firms % 11,373 74.81% 1,727 11.36% 1,297 8.53% 430 2.83% 164 1.08% 94 0.62% 117 0.77% 15,202 100.00%
Number of Law Firms by Size of Firms
68
4. BOnA FIDE PRIvATE OFFICE lOCATIOnS Of the 30,083 attorneys engaged in private practice of new Jersey law from offices located within this state, 99.9% (30,058) indicated the new Jersey County in which their primary bona fide office was located, while 25 attorneys did not. Essex County housed the largest number of private practitioners with 16.7% (5,010), followed by Bergen County with 12.4% (3,718). Morris County was third at 10.9% (3,263) and Camden County was fourth with 10.7% (3,230). New Jersey Bona Fide Private Offices County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Figure xx Number 643 3,718 1,423 3,230 183 186 5,010 407 1,067 340 2,034 Percent 2.14% 12.36% 4.73% 10.74% 0.61% 0.62% 16.65% 1.35% 3.55% 1.13% 6.76% County Middlesex Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren
No County Listed
Totals
Figure 30
Number Percent 1,858 6.18% 1,991 6.62% 3,263 10.85% 781 2.60% 875 2.91% 62 0.21% 1,011 3.36% 225 0.75% 1,574 5.23% 177 0.58% 25 0.08% 30,083 100.00%
5. BOnA FIDE nEw JERSEy OFFICES Of the 35,867 attorneys who indicated they were engaged in private practice of new Jersey law, 83.9% (30,083) had bona fide offices within new Jersey, while 16.1% (5,784) had offices located in other jurisdictions: Pennsylvania 6.7% (2,402), new york 8% (2,871), Delaware less than 1% (64), and various other United States jurisdictions represent 0.8% (294), while less than one percent (153) failed to indicate their state. Bona Fide Private Office Locations State New Jersey Pennsylvania New York Delaware Other No State Listed Totals Figure xx Number 30,083 2,402 2,871 64 294 153 35,867
Figure 31
Percent 83.87% 6.70% 8.00% 0.18% 0.82% 0.43% 100%
69

Attorney Disciplinary Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attorney Disciplinary Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 State of the Attorney Disciplinary System Report

Honorable Stuart Rabner

CHARLES CENTINARO Director

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Charles Centinaro, Director Office of Attorney Ethics

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AND PROCEDURE

GROUNDS FOR FINAL DISCIPLINE

OTHER RELATED ACTIONS

vII. vIII. IX.

ATTORNEY FEE ARBITRATION

RANDOM AUDIT PROGRAM

THE YEAR IN REvIEW

Office of Attorney Ethics

II. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AND PROCEDURE

* Active Lawyers Source: Lawyers Fund for Client Protection

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

YEARLY DISCIPLINE REPORT AND SUMMARIES OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

1993 2003 2000 1986 1991 1985 1989

TOTAL REINSTATEMENTS ........................................................................................................ ..12

STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINE IMPOSED

Office of Attorney Ethics

Iv. GROUNDS FOR FINAL DISCIPLINE

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

DISCIPLINARY SUMMERIES (1/1/2010 TO 12/31/2010)

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

OTHER RELATED ACTIONS

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

vI. DISCIPLINARY STRUCTURE

District IIB - Bergen County - South

Kim Marie Connor, Esq.

Office of Attorney Ethics

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Chief Justice Rabner

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

OAE Legal Group

OAE Administrative Group

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

Office of Attorney Ethics

vII. ATTORNEY FEE ARBITRATION

OAE Fee Arbitration Group